ACIT EXEMPTIONS, ERODE vs. M.P.NACHIMUTHU M.JAGANNATHAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3002/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue is settled in favor of the assessee by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) denied depreciation on capital expenditure to an educational trust, citing double deduction. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal based on a jurisdictional High Court decision.

What were the issues?

Whether an educational trust is eligible for depreciation on assets when the entire cost has been claimed as application of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Department by : Mrs.Sumathi Venkataraman, JCIT Assessee by : None : 22.05.2018 सुनवाई क+ तार�ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क+ तार�ख / : 22.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-Salem, in dated 20.09.2017 for the AY 2012-13.

2.

While making the assessment for the AY 2012-13 in the case of the assessee, M/s. M.P. Nachimuthu M. Jagannathan Educational Trust, which is running colleges with hostel under the name & style as ‘M.P. Nachimuthu M.

Jagannathan Educational Trust’, the AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. CIT 348 ITR 344 (Ker.) read with CBDT Circular refused to allow the assessee’s claim of depreciation on the capital expenditure incurred from year to year holding that when the entire costs of assets have already been claimed as application of income towards objects of the Trust, the claim of depreciation on the cost of the very same assets results in double deduction.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Relying on the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of DIT Vs. M/s.Medical Trust of the Seventh Day Adventists in TCA No.844 of 2010 dated 08.08.2017 reported in (2017) 84 taxmann.com 202 (Madras), the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal.

4.

Aggrieved, the Revenue filed this appeal.

5.

None appeared for the assessee though the notice for hearing was served on the assessee on 21.04.2018. The Ld.DR presented the case on the lines of the grounds of appeal.

6.

We heard the submissions.

7.

We find that this issue is settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona, in Civil Appeal No.7186 of 2014 dated 13.12.2017, and hence the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on May 22, 2018, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →