Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
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.