TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) in following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection [2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and allowing the stand of the assessee. - ITA No. 5922/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2014 - SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri M.L.Perumal Respondent by : Shri Manish V. Shah ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, JM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. It is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1 Mumbai dated 16/07/2012 for the assessment year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as corpus donation u/s 11(1)(a) in the earlier years or current year and then as application of income u/s 11(1)(a) in the current or subsequent years which was legally not permissible. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee for carry forward of the said deficit ignoring the fact that there was no express provision in the I.T.Act, 1961 permitting allowance of such claim. 2. The assessee is a trust created and registered with Charity Commissioner as well as under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The activities of the trust are to provide financial assistance to various charitable institutions for medical relief, sports and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depreciation on the assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as a deduction on account of application of income, would amount to double deduction which is legally not permissible in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India 199 ITR 443 ? The aforementioned question was adjudicated with the following observation: 3. So far questions (b) (c) are concerned, counsel for the parties agree that the issue arising herein are covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (JBP$ [20031 264 ITR 110 / 131 Taxman 386 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to entertain ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judication: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in directing the AO to set off the defict of earlier years to the surplus of this year and consider such adjustment as application of income for charitable purpose? Hon ble Court has adjudicated the question with the following observation: 4. As regards second question is concerned, counsel on both sides agreed that the said question is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Institute of Banking reported in (2003) 264 ITR 110. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. In this view of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
