RANI MEYYAMMAI ACHI OF CHETTINAD CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) 1, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1633/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 September 2017AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The AO is directed to grant the benefit of depreciation as claimed by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee trusts claimed depreciation on assets that were already allowed as application of income under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the depreciation claim.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation can be claimed on assets which have already been allowed as application of income under Section 11.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)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, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 12.09.2017Pronounced: 13.09.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BENCH:

1.

against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai, in & 122/14-15/CIT(A)-17 dated 31.01.2017 for the AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 in the case of M/s.Rani Meyyammai Achi of Chettinad Charitable Trust & ITA No.1635/Mds/2017 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 17, Chennai, in ITA Nos.320/13-14/CIT(A)-17 dated 27.02.2017 for the AY 2010-11 in the case of M/s.Rajah Sir Annamalai Chattiar Memorial Trust.

2.

Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and ‘None’ represented on behalf of the assessee.

3.

All appeals are related to single issue representing non-granting of depreciation in respect of the assets, which has been already allowed as application u/s.11 in the earlier years. The Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the depreciation was not liable to be allowed. However, it was fairly agreed that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Medical Trust of The Seventh Day Adventists in TCA Nos.844, 845, 848, 849, 1079 of 2010, 99 & 1634, 1635/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:

to 102, 118, 120, 125, 475 to 478 of 2011, 457 of 2012, 650 of 2014, 949, 498, 500, 509, 511, 530, 696, 727, 736, 739, 760, 993, 997, 1099 of 2015 and 771 of 2016 dated 08.08.2017 wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as follows:

24.

Truth to tell, this Court in the matter of Calavala Cunnan Charities, has decided the question now under consideration in favour of the assessee and we could well have decided this Batch of appeals simply on the strength of the aforesaid decision. We are however persuaded to proceed further with the discussion since a conflicting view has been expressed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions (supra). Though the attention of the Division Bench of the Kerala High court was drawn to the decision in Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities (supra) and several decisions along similar lines, the court was persuaded to take a contrary view preferring to follow the rationale of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts (supra).

25.

As noted by us earlier, the judgment of the Supreme Court in escorts turns on an entirely different position of law and would not impact the issue being discussed in the present case.

26.

We are supported in our view by a plethora of decisions of various High Courts — the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v.. Munisuvrat Jain (1994 Tax Law Reporter 1084) and DIT (Exem) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (109 CTR 463); Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St.Anne (146 ITR 28); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT v. Raipur Pallottine Society (180 ITR 579); Gujarath High Court in CIT Vs. Sheth Manilal rachhnoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598; Punjab and Haryana High court in CIT v. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society (330 ITR 21); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT v. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation (358 ITR 452) and the Calcutta High Court in IT v. Silluguri Regulated Market committee (366 ITR 51). In addition, the Delhi High Court in DIT v. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 262 CTR 558 and the Karnnataka High Court in DIT (Exem) v. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (2016) 67 taxmann.com 160 have accepted the claim of the assessee distinguishing both the judgment of the Supreme Court in Escorts as well as that of the Kerala High Court.

27.

In view of the discussion above, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Medical Trust of The Seventh Day Adventists referred to supra, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras, the AO is directed to grant the assessee the benefit of depreciation as claimed. & 1634, 1635/Mds/2017 :- 4 -:

5.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on September 13, 2017, at Chennai.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →