KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. ACIT(E)(C-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1075/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 August 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that depreciation is a statutory allowance that should be allowed even if not claimed. The CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions on this point.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal focused on the denial of depreciation on fixed assets. The assessee was not eligible for deductions under Section 10(23C) or Section 12AA of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of depreciation on fixed assets was justified and if the claim should be examined afresh by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C),Section 12AA,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE BEFORE: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & SH. RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1075/Chd/2026 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kurukshetra University, बनाम ACIT( E), Kurukshetra (Haryana) 136119 [C-2] Chandigarh �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAAJK1297P अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarrwal (CA) – Ld. AR राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Jaishree Sharma, CIT – Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.08.2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2026 आदेश/Order PER RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, J.M: The present appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dt. 16.3.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, arising out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act.

2.

Though multiple grounds have been raised by the Assessee but during the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee have not pressed any grounds, except ground No. 6, relating to the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the denial of deprecation of Rs. 20.62 cores on fixed

2 1075/Chd/2026 assets. Hence, the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as ‘not pressed’. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee would be eligible to lay claim on depreciation claim which could be verified by lower authorities.

3.

The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). The main grievance of the Assessee is denial of deprecation on fixed asset. It has not been disputed that the assessee is not eligible to lay claim on deduction either u/s 10(23C) or u/s 12AA of the Act. The only prayer of Ld. AR is grant of deduction for which requisite details were already furnished to lower authorities. In our considered opinion, the claim of depreciation is a statutory allowance / deduction and must be allowed even if not claimed by the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not even considered the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. The Ld. AR accordingly, seek remand back of the matter to the lower authorities. 5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the Assessee vide ground No. 6 needs to be examined afresh at the level of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remand this limited issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the Assessee’s claim of depreciation de novo by providing a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the Assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. Needless to say, that the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present its case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The Assessee is also

3 1075/Chd/2026 directed to present its case before the Assessing Officer along with supporting documents, as and when called for, and will not contribute in unnecessary delay in the disposal of the appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2026. -Sd- -Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER rkk आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 10(23C)

All 713 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →