ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI vs. ST. JOSEPH INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that even if the cost of an asset is claimed as application of income, a charitable institution is still entitled to claim depreciation on that asset. This is based on a Supreme Court judgment.
What were the facts?
The assessee trust claimed depreciation on assets whose entire cost was previously claimed as application of income for exemption under Section 11. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation, but the CIT(A) allowed it.
What were the issues?
Whether depreciation can be claimed on an asset when its entire cost has already been claimed as application of income for exemption under Section 11.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai dated 11.09.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of depreciation, when the entire cost of acquisition of assets were claimed by the assessee and allowed by the Assessing Officer as application of income for the purpose of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed it return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 02.06.2011 admitting “NIL” income and claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. Further, the assessee claimed depreciation to the extent of ₹.3,05,69,669/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the depreciation claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed since the cost of the asset was already claimed as application of income and concluded the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.
On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee and by considering various decisions, the ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation.
Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that, admittedly, the assessee claimed the cost of acquisition as application of income, therefore, the cost of asset becomes ‘nil’. The ld. DR further submitted that there is no mechanism for computing the depreciation. Moreover, the assessee is a charitable institution. Moreover, the provision of section 32 of the Act is applicable only for the asset which is used for business and in this case, according to the ld. DR, the asset was not used for business and, therefore, there is no question of granting depreciation under section 32 of the Act and pleaded for reversing the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona in Civil Appeal No.7186 of 2014 dated 13.12.2017 and prayed for confirmation of order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (supra) found that even though the cost of asset was allowed as application of income in the year of acquisition of asset, the charitable institution is still entitled for depreciation. In view of this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are unable to uphold the contention of the ld. DR. Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (supra) and for the reasoning stated therein, the ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 24th May, 2018 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026