9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ani Gujarati Charitable Foundation [ 2013 (1) TMI 820 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] wherein held the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the depreciation in respect of cost of the assets allowed to the assessee as expenditure is allowable and does nor gives rise to double deduction. This Court answered the question of law considering the prior decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking [ 2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] against the Revenue. Once assessee is allowed depreciation, he shall be entitled to carry forward the depreciation as well. Assessee appeal allowed. - G. S. KULKARNI SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sameer Dalal, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DTR (Ker) 372 has decided the issue in the favour of the department after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd (199 ITR 43) . c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT erred in relying upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10, which was decided by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking personnel selections without appreciating the fact that Department has not accepted the decision in the case of Institute of Banking personnel selection on merit, but due to smallness of tax effect appeal was not filed before Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law considering the prior decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking [2003] 264 ITR 110 (Bom.) against the Revenue. 4. In the Revenue s proceeding before the Supreme Court against the aforesaid decision of this Court in the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona confirmed the findings rendered by this Court. The order passed by the Supreme Court records as under:- 1. These are the petitions and appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against the orders passed by various High Courts granting benefit of depreciation on the assets acquired by the respondents-assessees. It is a matter of record that all the assessees are charitable institutions regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994 Tax Law Reporter, 1084 the facts were as follows. The assessee was a Charitable Trust. It was registered as a Public Charitable Trust. It was also registered with the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune. The assessee derived income from the temple property which was a Trust property. During the course of assessment proceedings for assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the assessee claimed depreciation on the value of the building @ 21/2% and they also claimed depreciation on furniture @ 5%. The question which arose before the Court for determination was: whether depreciation could be denied to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was held that income of a Charitable Trust derived from building, plant and machinery and furniture was liable to be computed in normal commercial manner although the Trust may not be carrying on any business and the assets in respect whereof depreciation is claimed may not be business assets. In all such cases, section 32 of the Income-tax Act providing for depreciation for computation of income derived from business or profession is not applicable. However, the income of the Trust is required to be computed under section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ie., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid view taken by the Bombay High Court correctly states the principles of law and there is no need to interfere with the same. 3. It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
