9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT in assessee's own case and / or by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 3. The first ground raised is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,25,84,616/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of franchisee fees received by the DPS Society from difference satellite schools which are running under the name and logo of Delhi Public School having different management that the DPS Society. 4. On the above issue at the threshold, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for preceding year. Hence, he submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard, we observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly followed the judgment of ITAT and the first appellate authority i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) passed in assessee's own case in this regard had rightly considered that the amount of fees received from satellite schools was not liable to tax for the year under consideration. Hence, he rightly deleted the addition. Accordingly, we are unable to see any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. Therefore, we have no reason to interfere with the same. On the basis of foregoing discussions, we arrive to a conclusion that ground no. 1 is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and we dismiss the same." 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of the ITAT in assessee's own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation ignoring the fact that the assessee society is a charitable society and in a case where capital expenditure has been treated to have been applied for the object of the trust, the allowance of deduction on account of depreciation would not amount to double deduction. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra) which was carefully considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission (supra) by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of M/s Tiny Tots Education Society wherein their Lordships after careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances held that in the case of Escort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also rightly held that the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been held by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purpose or objects of the assessee trust because the income of the assessee is being exempt from tax. In view of above, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) was justified in holding that the claim of depreciation cannot be held as double deduction or benefit for computing the income for the purposes of Section 11 of the Act. 26. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) also considered the judgments of the ITAT and his coordinate first appellate auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fixed assets utilized for the charitable purposes should be allowed. On this issue, there seems to be a consensus of judicial thinking; Having regard to the consensus of judicial opinion, we are not inclined to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. There does not appear to be any contrary view plausible on the question raised before us and at any rate no judgement taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice." 11. In view of the above mentioned decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), hence, we uphold the same on this issue. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Representative could not produce any decision contrary in this regard. 17. Hence, upon careful consideration, we find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of D.I.T. vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust (Supra) has held as under (Heads notes only):- "Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or religious trust - Exemption of income from property held under - Whether a trust can be allowed to carry forward deficit of current year and to set off same against income of subsequent years - Held, yes - Whether adjustment of deficit of current year against income of subsequent year would amount to application of income of trust for charitable purposes in subsequent year within meaning of section 11(1)(a) - Held, yes." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
