DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE KERAWALA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5391/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 February 2017AY 2012-133 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal respectfully followed its own previous judgments in the assessee's own case, which had allowed the carry forward of deficits for trusts. These decisions had relied on the Bombay High Court's ruling in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection.

What were the facts?

The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the carry forward of a deficit by a trust to subsequent years. The Revenue argued there was no express provision for this in the Income Tax Act and mentioned an SLP filed against a High Court decision in a similar case.

What were the issues?

Whether a trust can carry forward its deficit to subsequent years in the absence of an express provision in the Income Tax Act, and if previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case are binding.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.P.TOLANI

For Appellant: Ms Beena Santosh
For Respondent: Shri Satish R. Mody
Hearing: 01/02/2016Pronounced: 01/02/2017

ORDER This is Revenue’s appeal. The only ground raised challenges the action of CIT(A) in allowing carry forward of deficit of Rs.8,12,28,425/- to subsequent year on the ground that there is no express provision in the Income Tax Act in this behalf. Further the Department has preferred SLP against Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection relied on by ld. CIT(A).

2.

The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer.

On the other hand, Ld. Representative for the assessee contends that the issue in question has already been decided in favour of the assessee by ITAT in its own case for assessment year 2008-09 order dated 05/10/2015 and assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12, order dated 18/11/2016 by observing as under:- “This Tribunal in the case of the assessee has followed the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, 264 ITR 110(Bom). No contrary decision was brought to my knowledge. In view of this and respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal, I confirm the order of CIT(A) and dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue.”

It is contended that the relief has been given by ld. CIT(A) following the order of ITAT in assessee’s own case, therefore, his order cannot be called as infirm merely because SLP has been filed by department in some other case.

3.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Respectfully following the series of ITAT judgments in assessee’s own case as mentioned above allowing the carry forward of deficit to asessee trust , Revenue’s grounds are dismissed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01/02/2017

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →