ACIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI vs. DAWAT-E-HADIYAH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4333/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 July 2016AY 2009-103 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 held that a trust is entitled to claim depreciation on assets even if their cost was fully allowed as application of income in prior years. It also held that the trust can claim carry forward and set off of deficits from earlier years.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, claimed depreciation on fixed assets whose expenditure was already claimed as application of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation, stating it would be a double deduction. The CIT(A) allowed the claim.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation is allowable on capital assets when the expenditure has already been claimed as application of income, and whether deficits from earlier years can be carried forward and set off.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12A

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 “J”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI SANJAY GARG

For Appellant: Shri F.B. Andhyarujina, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Alok Johari, D.R
Hearing: 18.07.2016Pronounced: 22.07.2016

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27.04.2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee invested in fixed assets and claimed application of income and further claimed deprecation on the same fixed assets. The Assessing Officer held that the allowance of depreciation would amount to double deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee. The Revenue, thus, has come in appeal before us.

2 M/s. Dawat-E-Hadiyah 3. The Revenue has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal. But only two effective issues have been raised. The first issue is whether the assessee trust is entitled to the claim of depreciation on capital assets, expenditure in respect of which has already been claimed by the assessee as application of income. The second issue is as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the assessee trust is entitled to claim the carry forward and set off of deficit of earlier years on account of excess expenditure/application of income.

4.

The Ld. A.R., at the outset, has stated at bar that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee dated 30.07.15 for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12. Both the issues came under consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal while relying upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court including that of “CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection” (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bombay) and “DIT (E) vs. M/s. Najam Baug Trust” of 2013 vide order dated 14.01.15 has decided both the issues in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal has noted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection” (supra) has held that a trust can claim deprecation on assets, even if, cost of assets has been fully allowed as application of income under section 11 of the Act in past years and that there is no question of double deduction in allowing the depreciation in respect of assets acquired and used by the trust.

5.

We find that in the case of “DIT(E) vs. Najam Baug Trust” (supra) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has, while relying upon the decision in the case of “Institute of Banking Personnel Selection” (supra) has held that the assessee is entitled to claim carry forward losses/deficit on account of excess expenditure/application of income in earlier years. We further find that the Tribunal has also discussed in the own case of assessee, the effect of the amendment brought vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 in section 11(6) of the Act wherein it has been provided that depreciation will not be allowed while

3 M/s. Dawat-E-Hadiyah computing application of income w.e.f. April 1, 2015. The Tribunal while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Indra Prasstha Cancer Society” in ITA No.240 of 2014 order dated November 18, 2014 that the amended provisions are applicable w.e.f. the assessment year 2015-16 and the same will not have any applicability for the assessment years prior to A.Y. 2015-16. The Ld. D.R. has also fairly admitted that both the issues are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee.

6.

In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the Department is therefore dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2016.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →