2021 (8) TMI 1387 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - AO examined the activity of the assessee and held that it falls under General Public Utility and is charging fees from customers and has obtained Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) from Belgium and transferring through license agreement use of such IPR and un-species, thus covered by the proviso to Section 2(15) - whether assessee s activities are not within the purview of the section 2(15)? - CIT(A) allowed deduction - HELD THAT - Revenue could not show us that the above order of the co-ordinate bench has been reversed by the Hon ble High Court. In view of this the order of the co-ordinate bench in assessee s own case for earlier year binds - Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Act and there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals). Accordingly, ground No. 1 of both the appeals are dismissed. Claim of the depreciation , despite the assessee has claimed the whole cost of the assets as application of the income at the time of purchase of those assets has been allowed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) following the decision of Indraprastha Cancer Society 2014 (11) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT - We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in allowing the claim of depreciation to the assessee for both the years.

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act
- Claim of depreciation
- Claim of accumulated funds under section 11(2)

Issue 1: Benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act:
The appeals pertained to the same assessee for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer denied the benefits of section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, citing that the assessee's activities did not fall within the purview of section 2(15) of the IT Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal based on a previous decision in the assessee's favor for assessment year 2009-10. The tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the issue was identical to the earlier case and that the Revenue failed to show any reversal by the High Court, thus granting the assessee the benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Act.

Issue 2: Claim of Depreciation:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation for both assessment years, arguing that the assessee had already claimed the amount incurred on asset purchases in earlier years as application of income, leading to potential double deduction. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the claim, following a decision of the Delhi High Court in a similar case. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding no reason to deviate from the Commissioner's ruling, and dismissed the grounds of appeal related to the claim of depreciation.

Issue 3: Claim of Accumulated Funds under Section 11(2):
The claim of accumulated funds under section 11(2) became redundant due to the tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee regarding the benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Act. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the claim of accumulated funds. Overall, both appeals of the Assessing Officer were dismissed by the tribunal, and the orders were pronounced on 04/08/2021.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved and the tribunal's decisions on each, providing a detailed overview of the legal proceedings and outcomes in the case.