9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 812 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on capital assets - disallowance on double deduction - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - As decided in Commissioner of Income-tax Versus. Tiny Tots Education Society 2010 (7) TMI 377 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT the income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purpose of the trust. It could not be held that double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11 - in favour of assessee. Provision for diminution in the value of investment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has not given a speaking order and not properly dealt with the issue. He has remitted the matter also to the Assessing Officer which was beyond of his jurisdiction. Thus on the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be served if the matter is remitted to the file of the AO - in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Exempt income included in the assessed income - CIT(A) directed AO to delete the sum - Held that - Neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT (A) has made any addition on account of exempt income. The assessee has not reduced the exempt income from the computation income and the assessee is trying to raise a fresh ground as it is not permissible in view of the decision of Goetze (India) Limited Versus CIT (A) 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT that the power of the Tribunal under section 254, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal - against assessee.
Issues:
1. Depreciation claimed as application of money leading to double deduction. 2. Deletion of addition for diminution in the value of investment. 3. Exempt income inclusion in the assessed income. Issue 1: Depreciation claimed as application of money leading to double deduction: The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs. 4,55,683 claimed by the assessee, asserting it as a double deduction. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a similar case and ruled in favor of the assessee. The ITAT upheld the decision, stating that the assessee was not claiming double deduction but seeking to reduce income for determining the percentage of funds applied for trust purposes. Citing the High Court's decision, the ITAT affirmed the Ld. Commissioner's order, finding no infirmity. Issue 2: Deletion of addition for diminution in the value of investment: The Assessing Officer questioned the provision of Rs. 13,72,655 for diminution in the value of investment, contending it was not applied for the society's objectives. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) partially allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to verify a mathematical error and reconsider the claim. The Revenue appealed this decision. The ITAT found the Ld. Commissioner's order lacking proper analysis and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, emphasizing the interest of justice. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the issue. Issue 3: Exempt income inclusion in the assessed income: The assessee raised objections regarding the inclusion of exempt income in the assessed income. However, it was found that no such claim was made before the authorities, and no addition was made by the Assessing Officer or sustained by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The ITAT dismissed the issue, stating that the assessee cannot raise a new ground at this stage, as no question of law was involved. Referring to relevant case laws, the ITAT held that the claim of deduction not originally made by the assessee cannot be entertained at this juncture. In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the assessee's cross objection. The judgment provided detailed analysis and legal reasoning for each issue raised, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the matters at hand.
|
