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.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 1, Mumbai dated 18/10/2016 for A.Y.2012-13 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act.
In this appeal Revenue is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) allowing claim of depreciation, setting off of the brought forward deficit of earlier years and allowing claim of exemption of dividend u/s.10(35) of the IT Act.
At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case wherein ground raised by the Revenue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Bombay Gowrakshak Mandali 4. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered with DIT (E), Mumbai u/s, 12A dated 19.08.1975. The assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2012 along with the Income & Expenditure Account, Balance Sheet and Audit Report in Form 10B declaring total income at Rs. Nil. However,, the A.O completed the assessment vide order dated 10.03.2015 u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at taxable income of Rs. l,68,06,405/-.
By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,13,619/- on fixed assets.
This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in its own case by the following decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] • in for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 • in ITA No. 5311/Mum/2012 for, the Assessment Year 2009-10 8. The contrary decisions referred to by the Assessing Officer in Ground No.2 of the appeal have been considered and held to be not applicable in a series of decisions cited by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1-Mumbai CIT(A).
CIT(A) also allowed setting off of brought forward deficit of earlier years and the deficit of earlier years to be carried forward for setting off in the subsequent years, after having observation at para 6.2.
Bombay Gowrakshak Mandali 10. We found that this issue is covered in favour of the "assessee in its own case by the following decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT:
• in for Assessment Year 2010-2011 • in ITA No. 5311/Mum/2012 for Assessment Year 2009-10
The CIT(A) has also allowed claim for the exemption of dividend u/s.10(35). We found that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) v/s. Jasubhai Foundation reported in [2015] 374 ITR 315 and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jamsetji Tata Trust v/s. JDIT (Exemption) reported in [2014] 44 taxmann.com 447. Decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Seth Walchand Hirachand Memorial Trust vs. ITO in ITA No. 4852/M/2016.
Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vis-à-vis decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and other decisions referred above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27/11/2017 Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH ) (R.C.SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 27/11/2017 Karuna Sr.PS