9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.03.2016. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in "Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune Vs Rajasthan, Gujarathi Charitable Foundation", (2018) 89 taxmann.com 127 (SC)/(2018) 300 CTR 1 (SC). The learned Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the identical issue as in this writ petition. 3. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted below: "1. .....From the judgments of the High Courts, it can be discerned that the High Courts have primarily followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)' [(2003) 131 Taxman 386 (Bombay)]. In the said judgment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business ahll be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C. That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only under section 32 of the Income Tax Act and not under general principles. The Court rejected this argument. It was held that normal depreciation can be considered as a legitimate deduction in computing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had C.A. No. 7186/ 2014 etc. been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The Appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
