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, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar
Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24/02/2012 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground raised in this appeal is that whether the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was right ignoring the ratio laid down in Escorts Ltd. vs Union Of India, wherein it was held that double deduction cannot be presumed, if it is 2 The Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. not specially provided by law in addition to normal deduction.
During hearing, the ld. DR, Shri Randhir Gupta, advanced his arguments identical to the ground raised
. On the other hand, Shri Shekhar Gupta, ld. counsel for the assessee claimed that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in CIT vs Institute of Banking (264 ITR 110)(Bom.) and CIT vs Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR
21. (P & H).
2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is duly registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). The assessee receives fee from its members which is deposited in the banks as property of the trust. The assessee earned interest income from such deposits and applied the same towards the objects of the trust i.e. maintenance of the golf course. The stand of the department is that the assessee is doing business activity, whereas, the stand of the assessee is that the assessee is not carrying out any business, therefore, the income is to be assessed under the head income from other sources. Without going into much deliberation, we find that the issue under hand is covered by the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Institute of Banking 264 ITR 110 (Bom.) and CIT vs Tiny Tots Education society 330 ITR 21 (P & H), wherein, it was held that depreciation is an allowable expenditure. Even otherwise, the department 3 The Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. 12A and the benefit of section 80G of the Act. The objects of the assessee club are charitable in nature, its income was also exempt u/s 11 of the Act. The stand of the Revenue is that if depreciation is allowed to the assessee, it would result in double deduction. In view of the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (Supra), we find no infirmity in the impugned order directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the asset, the cost of which had been fully as application of income u/s 11 in earlier years. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 19/10/2015.