9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to allow depreciation of Rs. 10,29,516/- on fixed assets as against the order of AO holding that the entire capital expenditure incurred on acquisition of fixed assets has been allowed u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act (Act) and thus, challenging the order of CIT(A), which has resulted in to double deduction of the same amount, first by way of claiming deduction of expenditure u/s. 11 of the Act at the time of acquisition of assets and thereafter by way of depreciation. The AO rejected the claim of assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Limited Vs. Union Bank of India [199 ITR 43], wherein it has been held that double deduction cannot be allowed under any circumstances. AO further observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) and Director of Income Tax(Exemptions), Mumbai Vs. Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal [2015] [58 taxmann.com 288]. 4. After hearing the rival contentions, perusing the material on record, including the impugned order, we observe that the issue of allowability of depreciation of fixed assets in the case of public charitable trust has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona vide Civil Appeal No. 7186 of 2014, a copy of which has been placed in the paper book as Exhibit "A". Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) and in the case of Director of Income Tax(Exemptions), Mumbai Vs. Shri Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly assessee is not entitled any carry forward of such losses/deficit. 5.2. In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee, allowed the appeal of assessee by observing and holding as under: "5.2 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, gone through the assessment order of the A.O and the submissions of the appellant and also discussed the case with the AR of the appellant. The contentions and submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided here in under: i. Relying upon several case laws the appellant stated that deficit of the current year is required to be carried forward to the subsequent years. On perusal of the facts I find that the case of appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quent years. We do not find any merit in this argument of the department. Income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied then adjustment of expenses incurred by the Trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by the Trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the Trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in section 11 of the Act and that such adjustment will have to be excluded from the income of the Trust under section ll(l)(a) of the Act. Our view is also suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
