9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue is directed against the order dated 9.11.2010 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee trust came into existence in 1986. The assessee is having property titled as Najam Baug and is registered with the Charity Commissioner under Bombay Public Trust Act vide order 25.11.1952. The trust is also registered under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in disallowing the carry forward of deficit and in denying set off against the income of the subsequent years and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow to carry forward the deficit to the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us taking the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of brought forward of deficits by ignoring the principle set out by the Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 according to which the law should not be read so as to allow more than one deduction for the same outgoing. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai, erred in ignoring the fact that the case of Institute of Banking Personnel reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ps after considering various decisions including the decision in CIT V/s Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) have held as under: 9. In the present case, the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been suggested by learned counsel for the Revenue. The income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee is only claiming that depreciation should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
