9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 469 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation - Double deduction - Amount already allowed as application of income - Held that - Following decision of DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX Versus VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION 2012 (4) TMI 289 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Allowance of double deduction as the value of assets claimed as application of income. 2. Allowance of depreciation and set off for the same. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the CIT(A)'s order allowing double deduction for the value of assets claimed as application of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation, stating that allowing depreciation on assets already considered as application of income would result in double deduction. The CIT(A) granted depreciation by relying on judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Delhi High Court, along with a Tribunal order in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08. The Revenue contended that the CBDT clarification and a judgment of the Kerala High Court favored their position. However, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 2. The second issue revolved around the allowance of depreciation and set off for the same amount. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, following the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that they were bound by the judgment of the Delhi High Court and no interference was warranted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld as correct and in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi, in the absence of the respondent, analyzed the issues of double deduction and allowance of depreciation with set off. Relying on relevant case laws and judgments, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
|
