9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 373 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation claim on assets of trust - assessee had claimed depreciation allowance on the cost of fixed assets, whereas such cost of fixed assets has also been taken as an application of income while computing the total income - double deduction - Held that - Indraprastha Cancer Society, (2014 (11) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein it has been opined that the allowance of depreciation in similar situation would not amount to a double deduction. There is no error on the part of the CIT(A) in following the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the assessee s own case and in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY High Court ) and allowing the stand of the assessee. - Decided against revenue
Issues:
1. Disposal of appeals against the same assessee for multiple Assessment Years. 2. Ex-parte disposal of appeals due to non-appearance of the respondent-assessee. 3. Dispute over disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets and carry forward of deficit for future set-off. 4. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding double deduction on depreciation. 5. Application of judicial precedents in deciding the allowance of depreciation and carry forward of deficit. 6. Decision on the appeals filed by the Revenue for different Assessment Years. The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai heard five appeals by the Revenue against the same assessee for Assessment Years 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13, clubbing them together for convenience. The respondent-assessee did not appear despite notice, leading to ex-parte disposal as per Rule 25 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The first appeal, ITA No. 116/Mum/2017 for Assessment Year 2008-09, concerned the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets and carry forward of deficit for future set-off. The primary issues in the appeal were the allowance of depreciation and carry forward of deficit by the CIT(A), contested by the Revenue. The Revenue argued against double deduction on depreciation, citing the decision in Escorts Ltd. v. UOI. However, the CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection and the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2007-08. The Revenue's contention that its SLP on a similar issue was pending before the Supreme Court was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. Regarding the carry forward of deficit, the CIT(A) allowed the claim following the Bombay High Court's judgment in the assessee's case and the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09. The same reasoning applied to appeals for other Assessment Years, leading to the dismissal of all Revenue appeals. The Tribunal pronounced the order on 31st August 2017. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on depreciation and deficit carry forward, based on legal interpretations and judicial precedents, dismissing the Revenue's appeals for various Assessment Years.
|
