2017 (3) TMI 1740 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation allowable on the assets of the trust - Held that - So far question no.(i) is concerned it has been concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the order passed today in the case of DIT (Exemptions) Mumbai v/s. M/s. Aditya Birla Foundation 2017 (3) TMI 1738 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . No substantial question of law. Claim of the assessee for carry forward of the said deficit - Held that - The question no.(ii) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it stands concluded by the decision of this Court in M/s. Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council 2011 (2) TMI 1511 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT as well as CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services 2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding depreciation allowance on trust assets.
2. Claim of the assessee for carry forward of deficit and the absence of an express provision in the Act.

Analysis:

Regarding question no.(i):
The Tribunal's order upheld the depreciation allowance on trust assets, citing precedents like Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v/s. M/s. Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council and Dy. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) v/s. Aditya Birla Foundation. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and it was noted that the issue had been decided against the Revenue in a recent case involving DIT (Exemptions) Mumbai v/s. M/s. Aditya Birla Foundation. Consequently, question no.(i) was not entertained as it did not present a substantial question of law.

Regarding question no.(ii):
The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for carry forward of the deficit, aligning with the decision in M/s. Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council. No distinguishing features were identified to warrant a different view from the precedent set by the Court in the aforementioned case. Therefore, question no.(ii) did not give rise to any substantial question of law and was concluded by the previous decisions. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.