TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that it did not deal with the issue of an exemption available to the Trust under Section 11 of the Act. It was concerned with the issue of double deduction being claimed under Section 35 of the Act i.e. capital expenditure on scientific research and depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. The issue of Section 11 of the Act has been directly dealt by the Apex Court in Rajasthan Gujarati Chari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 8th June, 2016 is a common order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Thus, these two appeals. At the request of the parties, both the Appeals are being considered together as the facts (except the figures) and laws are identical for both the Assessment Years. 2 The common identical questions being pressed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding the claim of the Assessee for carry forward of the deficit, ignoring the fact that there is no express provisions in the Act, permitting allowance of such claim? 3 Re. Question (a):- (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenue s appeal by following the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the Act i.e. capital expenditure on scientific research and depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. The issue of Section 11 of the Act has been directly dealt by the Apex Court in Rajasthan Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Pune (supra). Thus, it would apply to the present facts. (iv) In view of the above, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
