COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. MARKET COMMITTEE ASSAND

ITA/810/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093783201023 February 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax, has appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2006-07. The ITAT had restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of earlier years. The ITAT also directed the AO to consider excess application of income from previous years to be adjusted in the current year. The Revenue's appeal challenges the ITAT's justification for these directions, particularly concerning the allowability of depreciation on capital assets when capital expenditure was already allowed as application of income, and the absence of specific provisions for carry-forward and set-off of losses or unabsorbed depreciation in cases assessed under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. The High Court noted that the matter was covered by a previous decision of the same court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the learned counsel for the revenue fairly stated that the matter was covered against the revenue by a previous order of the High Court dated 28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.238 of 2010 CIT v. Market Committee, Karnal and other connected matters. Therefore, the High Court did not independently adjudicate on the substantial questions of law framed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in restoring the issue to the AO to allow set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of earlier years, given that depreciation is not allowable on capital assets when capital expenditure has already been allowed as application of income, and Sections 70 to 80 of the Income Tax Act do not specifically provide for carry forward and set-off of losses or unabsorbed depreciation in cases assessed under Sections 11 to 13. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in directing the AO to consider the excess amount of application of income of previous years to be adjusted in the current year, despite the absence of a specific provision in Sections 11 to 13 and the inapplicability of the ratio in Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation to this jurisdiction. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that depreciation was allowable on a capital asset when deduction for capital expenditure incurred for its acquisition had already been allowed as application of income of the trust. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The ITAT was not justified in its directions regarding set-off of losses/depreciation and adjustment of excess application of income. The Revenue relied on the argument that Sections 70-80 do not specifically cover such scenarios for trusts and that depreciation is not allowable if capital expenditure is already treated as application of income. The Revenue also argued that the ratio of Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation was not applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 11,Section 12,Section 13,Section 70,Section 80

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 23.2.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. Market Committee, Assandh. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.305/DEL/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07 proposing following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to allow set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of earlier years, despite the fact that depreciation per se is not allowable on capital assets when deduction for capital expenditure has already been allowed as application of income in earlier years and when the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of the Income Tax Act have not speci

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →