9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts & circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact the assesses like charitable or religious institutions are governed by almost the separate or independent provisions of section 11,12,12, 12AA &13 and these provisions are independent code in itself in Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The income and expenditure is computed on the basis of application of income for charitable or religious purposes and the dedication is allowed of the entire expenditure including the capital expenditure for purchase and deduction is allowed of the entire expenditure including the capital expenditure for purchase of capital assets u/s 11(1). 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n claimed when the fixed assets were acquired. Therefore, allowance of depreciation would amount to double deduction and, accordingly, denied the claim of depreciation. 5. Proceeding further, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed provision for doubtful debts of Rs. 20.11 lakhs and bad debts of Rs. 9.91 lakhs. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that bad debts actually written off have to be considered while determining the income u/s 11 of the Act. 6. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has not clarified the circumstances and efforts made to realize the debts. Further, provisions of sections 28 to 44 of the Act, which are related to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2006-07, 2009-10 and 2010-11. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that all these issues have been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. The ld. DR could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue. 10. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the decisions of the co-ordinate bench. In so far as the claim of depreciation is concerned, the Tribunal in ITA No. 2555/DEL/2015 for Assessment Year 2010-11 had considered a similar disallowance. The issues before the co-ordinate bench were as under: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society (supra). In the said judgement the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has duly noted that insertion of Sub-Section (6) to Section 11 of the Act has been inserted w.e.f. 01st April, 2015 only and, therefore, the legal position would undergo a change and will be applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 only and will not be applicable to earlier Assessment Years. Since the present appeal before us pertains to the A.Y. 2010-11, the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case as aforesaid. Thus, we have no hesitation in allowing ground no.1 of assessee's appeal. 5.1 Coming to ground no.2, we find that this issue is also covered in favour of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the debt was a necessary pre-condition. Be that as it may, under the commercial principles it has always been recognized that a provision, reasonably made for a loss or an outgoing, can be deducted from the income if there is apprehension that the debt might become bad. There is nothing brought on record to show that the provision was not made bonafide. In such a situation, the ratio of the decisions cited by us while dealing with the deductibility of the taxes paid under the VDIS will equally apply. We accordingly hold that while computing the income available to the trust for application to charitable purposes in India in accordance with Section 11(1)(a) the provision for doubtful debts must be deducted. Accordingly, we frame the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the question whether after claiming deduction in respect of the cost of the assets u/s 35(1) of the Act, assessee again claimed deduction on account of depreciation in respect of the same asset. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held the issue in favour of the assessee. In view of the binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case, we do not find any unreasonableness in the order of the Id. CIT(A). We, therefore, confirm the order of the Id. CIT(A) and dismiss Ground Nos. 1 & 2. 6. Ground No.3 relates to the deletion of Rs. 2,14,310/- added by disallowing the loss on sale of assets. Plea of the assessee is that the assets were sold at a price lesser than the WDV of the assets and when the depreciation is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
