COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S SRINIVASA TRUST

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.79 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

(EXEMPTIONS), C.R. BUILDINGS

QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(2)

BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. SANMATHI E.I. ADV.,) AND: M/S. SRINIVASA TRUST NO.7/21, 1ST CROSS 9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE-560080 PAN:AABTS8147B. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 07.08.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1551/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09, PRAYING TO:

2 (i) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 07.08.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO.1551/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.A.Shankar, learned Senior counsel for Mr.M.Lava, learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Years 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2017 on the following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is eligible for claiming depreciation on the asset purchased through application of income?

3 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that assessee is eligible to carry forward the deficit to the subsequent years, so that to set off with future year income?" 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the first substantial question of law involved in this appeal has already been answered against the revenue by a decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT Vs. RAJASTHAN & GUJARAT CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA' (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC) as well as the decision of this Court in 'DIT Vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST' (2016) 383 ITR 517 (KAR). It is also submitted that the second substantial question of law has already been answered against the revenue by the decisions of this Court in 'CIT Vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE' (2018) 408 ITR 352 KAR as well as 'PCIT Vs. MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION (2019) 415 ITR 361 (KAR). The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.

4 3. For the reasons assigned in the aforementioned judgments, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV