9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (11) TMI 123 - ITAT BANGALORE] following the decision of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking [2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY High Court]. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I. T. A. No. 138 /Bang/ 2015 (assessment year 2011-12). - - - Dated:- 11-6-2015 - N. V. VASUDEVAN (Judicial Member) and ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (Accountant Member) P. Dhivahar for the appellant. None for the respondent. ORDER The order of the Bench was delivered by 1. Abraham P. George (Accountant Member).-In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is aggrieved that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mysuru, vide his order dated November 13, 2014, allowed the claim of depreciation on the assets, cost of which was all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orking out the utilisation could not be allowed. 5. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. 6. We have perused the orders and heard the contentions of the learned Departmental representative. The issue whether depreciation should be allowed on assets cost of which was allowed as a part of utilisation while computing the income of an assessee registered under section 12A of the Act, had come up before this Tribunal in the case of Asst. CIT v. Medical Relief Society of South Canara I. T. A. No. 1713/Bang/2013, dated December 10, 2014 [2015] 5 ITR (Trib)-OL 74 (Bang). This Tribunal, inter alia, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dr. T. M. A. Pai Foundation and Asst. CIT v. Shri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust [20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missible in law as per the ratio laid down by the hon'ble apex court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1993] 199 ITR 43 (SC). It was also contended by the learned authorised representative that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not following the decision of the hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT in (I. T. A. No. 42 of 2011) [2012] 348 ITR 344 (Ker) dated February 17, 2012. The learned Departmental representative prayed that in the light of the above, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this point be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. Per contra, the learned authorised representative placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he co-ordinate Bench of this jurisdictional Tribunal referred to and placed reliance upon, the Revenue's appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard both parties and perused and carefully consid ered the material on record, including the judicial decisions cited and placed reliance upon. We find the issue of the assessee's claim for depreciation on addition to assets acquired in the relevant period is to be allowed even if the entire cost of the same assets have been claimed by the assessee and allowed as application of its income for charitable purposes, since this issue has been held in favour of the assessee in a number of decisions of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the cases of Dr. T. M. A. Pai Foundation (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
