COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S MATHURA DASS VED KAUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/493/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093432201008 November 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The learned counsel for the revenue fairly stated that the matter was covered against the revenue by a previous order of the same Court dated August 10, 2010, in ITA No. 346 of 2008, CIT v. M/s Desh Bhagat Memorial Education Trust. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the merits of the substantial question of law raised regarding the claim of depreciation alongside a deduction under Section 11. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a prior judgment of the same High Court, the appeal would be dismissed on that ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated July 16, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The ITAT had upheld an order of the CIT(A) which allowed a claim for depreciation of Rs. 20,63,423/-. The assessee is M/s Mathura Dass Ved Kaur Memorial Education Society. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The dispute centers on whether depreciation can be claimed on an asset for which a deduction under Section 11 of the Act has already been allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 20,63,423/- even when the deduction u/s 11 was already allowed in respect of the same asset, which amounts to double deduction and is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited and others vs Union of India and others 199 ITR 43? Contentions: Assessee: No arguments are recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: The revenue contended that allowing depreciation on an asset for which deduction under Section 11 has already been allowed amounts to double deduction and is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Escorts Limited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 8.11.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Mathura Dass Ved Kaur Memorial Education Society. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

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 dated 16.7.2009 in I.T.A. No.3683/Del/2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs.20,63,423/- even when the deduction u/s 11 was already allowed in respect of the same asset, which amounts to double deduction and is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited and others vs Union of India and others 199 ITR 43?”

Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 10.8.2010 in I.T.A. No.346 of 2008 CIT v. M/s Desh Bhagat Memorial Education Trust.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 08, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →