2017 (12) TMI 987

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... view that there is no merit in these appeals by the Revenue and they are liable to be dismissed. The disallowance of depreciation cannot be sustained.
SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R) For The Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate ORDER Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. : These are appeals by the Revenue against two orders, in the case of two different Assessees, both dated 29.6.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), LTU, Bangalore, relating to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Both the assessees in these appeals are charitable trusts with objects to provide education by running several educational institutions. Both the Assessee's fil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as allowed as deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) of the Act. On the very same assets depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. The claim for deduction on account of depreciation was disallowed by the Revenue authorities on the ground that since the cost of the asset which was capital expenditure on scientific research was allowed as deduction allowing depreciation on the very same asset would amount to conferring double deduction and hence no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset. This view was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra). The AO was of the view that following the ratio laid down in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra), the claim for deduction on account of depreciation sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ead with Sec.263 of the Act by the AOs giving effect to the orders of the CIT dated 29.2.2012. The CIT(A) by the impugned orders after noticing that the very foundation of the orders dated 11.4.2012 viz., the order dated 29.2.2012 passed by CIT u/s.263 of the Act had been quashed by the T ribunal and upheld by the High Court, held that the addition on account of depreciation cannot survive. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. The submission of the learned DR before us was a reiteration of the are that the conclusions of the CIT in the order u/s.263 of the Act. It was also submitted by the Learned DR that the issue has not attained finality and the revenue ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X