9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant society is allowed to carry forward the deficit of the current year and to set off the same against the income of the subsequent years - Decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vishnu Dharmasanstha vs. Addl. CIT 102 TTJ 693 Ahmedabad. • City Montessori School vs. ACIT 64 TTJ (All) 475. • CIT vs. Programme for Community Organization 228 ITR 620 (KER) None of these cases are of jurisdictional Allahabad High Court. Moreover, what Supreme Court has held in the case of programme for Community Organization 248 ITR 1 is that the income of the trust should be computed in commercial manner. It no where states that depreciation can be allowed as application of income in the hands of the assessee. Going by the legal position in assessee's own case in the A. Y. 2005-06, after considering the facts of case, appeal to the ITAT has been filed on the same issue. In view of the foregoing legal position, depreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come under the head" Business and profession" but only " Income from property held under the Trust". This can never be taken to be same as "Income from Business & Profession." iii. As per a departmental Circular income has to be computed in a commercial manner. However the question arises whether an asset whose entire cost has been allowed as deduction by way of Exemption u/s 11 should be considered for the benefit of depreciation. This issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India 1993, 199 ITR page 43, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has decided that double tax or weighted deduction cannot be inferred. Where-ever the legislature wanted to give such deduction, it has specifically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowable expenditure u/s 11 of the I. T. Act,1961, without appreciating facts that depreciation is not a real expenditure but a notional expenditure only. 2. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the society is allowed to carry forward excess application of current year and to set off the same against the income of the subsequent years, without appreciating the fact that as per provision of section u/s11, no such carry forward excess application of current year and to set off the same against the income of the subsequent years, without appreciating the fact that as per provision of section u/s 11, no such carry forward of excess application is allowable. 3. That the order of CIT (A) deserves to be set aside and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
