2012 (10) TMI 1078 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to exemption u/s 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Entitlement to exemption u/s 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Allowability of depreciation when 100% cost has been claimed as deduction towards application of funds.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to exemption u/s 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the assessee exemption u/s 11(4A). The AO had denied this exemption, arguing that the assessee's activities, including Management Development Programs (MDP) and consultancy services, constituted business activities and that separate books of accounts were not maintained. The CIT(A) found that the assessee maintained separate ledger accounts for MDP and that the activities lacked a profit motive, thus qualifying for exemption u/s 11(4A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee maintained separate books of accounts for each institute and that the surplus was applied towards the educational objectives of the trust.

Issue 2: Entitlement to exemption u/s 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The AO had treated income from hiring premises and advertisement rights as business income. The CIT(A) held that the income from hiring premises and advertisement rights, which were used for educational purposes, was eligible for exemption u/s 11(1). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), referencing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce, which held that rental income from property held for charitable purposes is exempt.

Issue 3: Allowability of depreciation when 100% cost has been claimed as deduction towards application of funds

The AO disallowed depreciation, citing the Supreme Court decision in Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India, which prohibits double deductions. The CIT(A) distinguished this case and allowed depreciation based on the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Institute of Banking. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee was not claiming double deduction but merely reducing depreciation from income to determine the percentage of funds applied for the trust's purposes. The Tribunal referenced the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli, which supported this view.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds, thereby granting the assessee exemptions u/s 11(4A) and 11(1) and allowing the depreciation claim.