DDIT (E) II(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH ( NICMAR), MUMBAI
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 the CIT(A) correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in allowing depreciation and carrying forward of deficit. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation on assets whose cost was already allowed as deduction and carrying forward of deficit as application of income. The assessee is a charitable trust registered under section 12A.
What were the issues?
Whether depreciation can be claimed on assets whose cost has already been allowed as application of income, and whether deficit can be carried forward as application of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection398 citing264 ITR 110 · 2003 · HC
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य बी सद�य बी बी. . . . आर बी आर आर. . . . बा�करन आर बा�करन बा�करन केकेकेके अनुसार बा�करन अनुसार अनुसार/ Per B.R. Baskaran, AM- अनुसार The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 15/04/2014 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals)-I, Mumbai and it relates to assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on assets, cost of which has already been allowed as deduction as application of income. The Revenue is also aggrieved by the decision of ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) in holding that the excess of expenditure over income (deficit) can be carried-forward and treated as application of income in the subsequent years.
We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a Charitable Trust and registered under section 12A of the Act. It filed its return of income claiming deduction u/s.11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer
4783/M/14-NICMAR noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs.101.87 lakhs as deprecation on assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as application of income. The Assessing Officer, by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (199 ITR 143), held that the assessee cannot be allowed double deduction. Accordingly, he disallowed the claim of depreciation. The assessee had also claimed deduction of deficit amount (excess of expenditure over income) carried forward from earlier year as application of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same on the reasoning that the same would amount to double deduction.
In the appellate proceedings the ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) granted relief to the assessee on both the issues by following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel (264 ITR 110). Aggrieved by the decision rendered by the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed this appeal before us.
We notice that the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) has followed the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel (supra) while deciding both the issues in favour of the assessee. Since the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court has been followed, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) . We also notice that the issue relating to depreciation has been adjudicated by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in dated 30/03/2012 (AY -2007-08) by following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel (supra), and the said decision has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Income tax appeal (L) No.1246 of 2012.
4783/M/14-NICMAR
In view of the above, we uphold the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) on both the issues and accordingly dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
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 →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026