9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the Revenue are dismissed. Depreciation as application of income before the amendment - HELD THAT:- This issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan Gujarti Charitable Foundation [ 2017 (12) TMI 1067 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that the income of the trust is required to be computed u/s.11 of the Act on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation, affirmed the view of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. Framjee Casasjee Institute [ 1992 (7) TMI 331 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and differing with the view expressed in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [ 2012 (4) TMI 115 - KER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inciples of business income which contains the provisions of carry forward of losses of earlier year and set off such losses against the income of the current year. 2.4 The Id. CIT(A) failed to consider the decision of IT AT, Delhi in the case of Pushpawati Singhani Research Institute for Liver, Renal Digestive Diseases vs Dy.DIT ( 009)29 SOT 316, ITAT, Chennai decisions in the case of Anjuman-E-Himay th-Islam vs.ADIT(Exemption) - IV, Chennai for the A.Y. 2009-10 reported in [2015] 59 taxmann.com 379 and Mls Inter Church Service Association i ITA NO.1253/Mds/2014 dated 05/02/2016. 2.5 The Id.CIT(A) failed to observe that carry forward of excess application of funds would result in notional application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as application of income. 3.5 The ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the Apex Court decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Limited (65 Taxman. 420) wherein it was held that a double deduction cannot be a matter of inference. It must be provided for in clear and express language, having regard to its unusual nature and its serious impact on the revenues of the state. 3.6 The Id. CIT(A) failed t appreciate the decision of the ITAT, Cochin in the case of DDlT, Erna ulam Vs Adi Sankara Trust (2012) 143 TTJ 234 wherein it was held that when a charitable body has already claimed deduction for acquisition of capital assets as application of money, further claim of depreciation on the same assets would amount to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duly registered u/s.12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) on 30.11.1990. The return of income for the AY 2009-10 was filed on 30.09.2011 claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The assessment was completed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-I, Chennai, vide order dated 30.12.2011 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act at Nil income. However, the Assessing Officer had not disallowed depreciation claim of ₹ 2,24,88,139/- as application of income and not allowed carry forward of excess application of income to the subsequent assessment years. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order had allowed the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
