9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1010 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on assets of assessee trust - Held that - Claim has since been correctly allowed by the CIT(Appeals) following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel 2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY High Court Allow carry forward of the current s assessed deficit for set-off in the subsequent years - Held that - The said direction of the CIT(Appeals) is very much in line with the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) and on this aspect also no error can be found with the decision of the CIT(Appeals) which I hereby affirm.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee. 2. Allowance of carry forward of current year's assessed deficit for set-off in subsequent years. Analysis: 1. The appeal by the Revenue contested the order of CIT(A)-7, Mumbai, concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The primary issue revolved around the disallowance of depreciation claimed by the respondent assessee, a Trust registered under section12A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the claim for depreciation on assets, asserting it as double deduction. However, CIT(A) allowed the claim citing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Section. The Revenue challenged this decision, but the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision based on the binding precedent of the High Court and other supporting decisions, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. 2. The second issue raised by the Revenue concerned the direction of CIT(A) to allow the carry forward of the current year's assessed deficit for set-off in subsequent years. The Tribunal found this direction consistent with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection case. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed CIT(A)'s decision on this aspect as well, concluding that no error could be identified. As a result, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 29/02/2016.
|
