9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 289 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of depreciation on assessee trust - HELD THAT - We note that the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee 2014 (8) TMI 686 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT is applicable to the assessee, wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that depreciation claim is allowable even if asset had been claimed as application by assessee trust . Disallowance of administrative and establishment expenses - HELD THAT - Administrative and establishment expenses is an allowable expenditure, as has been held by the jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Birla Janahit Trust 1990 (8) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . That being so we decline to interfere in the order passed by the ld CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby upheld and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Admission Fee, Re-admission Fee, and Term Charges as Capital or Revenue Receipts. 2. Allowability of Depreciation on Assets as Application of Income. 3. Allowability of Administrative and Establishment Expenses as Application of Income. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Admission Fee, Re-admission Fee, and Term Charges as Capital or Revenue Receipts: The primary issue was whether the receipts from Admission Fee (?4,49,180), Re-admission Fee (?1,00,00,000), and Term Charges (?21,70,700) should be classified as capital receipts or revenue receipts. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that these receipts were fees collected from students and should be treated as income, routed through the Income & Expenditure Account. The AO argued that these were not corpus donations as they lacked specific donor directions and were not voluntary. The assessee argued that as an unaided school, it needed to raise funds for infrastructure and facilities, thus classifying these receipts as capital receipts credited to the General/Corpus Fund. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's view, treating these as revenue receipts. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the commercialization of education necessitated the correct accounting of such fees. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Modern School Vs. Union of India, it was justified to create a Development Fund for infrastructure upgrades. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's principle that the nomenclature of a document is not decisive; the nature and substance of the transaction matter. Based on these principles, the Tribunal accepted the fees as capital receipts, deleting the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 2. Allowability of Depreciation on Assets as Application of Income: The second issue was whether depreciation on assets, whose acquisition cost was already treated as application of income, should be allowed. The AO disallowed the depreciation claim amounting to ?1,03,74,724, arguing it amounted to double deduction. The Tribunal noted that sub-section (6) to section 11 of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation where the acquisition cost is claimed as application, is prospective from 01.04.2015. The Tribunal cited the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee, which allowed depreciation even if the asset's cost was claimed as application. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vatika Township, emphasizing that retrospective application of laws should benefit the assessee without imposing additional burdens. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation. 3. Allowability of Administrative and Establishment Expenses as Application of Income: The third issue involved the disallowance of administrative and establishment expenses amounting to ?28,22,647. The AO did not discuss these expenses in the assessment order but made an addition. The Tribunal noted that these expenses were necessary for running the trust's activities and should be considered as application of income. The Tribunal referred to the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT vs. Birla Janahit Trust, which held that administrative expenses incurred for carrying out the trust's objectives should be considered as application for charitable purposes. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow these expenses. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, classifying the Admission Fee, Re-admission Fee, and Term Charges as capital receipts, allowing depreciation on assets, and accepting administrative and establishment expenses as application of income. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
|
