CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli

330 ITR 16High Court2011#942 most cited

What is CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli authority for?

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on assets when computing the income applied for charitable or religious purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 11(6). The restriction on claiming depreciation, as introduced by Section 11(6), is prospective from AY 2015-16.

113

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Market Committee · Pipli · 330 ITR 16 · depreciation charitable trust · Section 11 application of income · funds applied for charitable objects · allowability of depreciation for trusts · Section 11(6) prospective · prior to AY 2015-16 · Section 10(23C) depreciation · Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 14Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)(a)mlisection 2(15)section 10(23c)put to use

Judgments citing CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. India Trade Promotion Org., New Delhi

ITA 3135/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1919/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.3359/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.2508/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ADIT (E), Inv. Circle (1), vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi. Pragati Bhawan, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAATI2955C) ITA No.3135/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) JDIT (E), Range 1, vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi. Pragati Bhawan, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi –…

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. M/S. India Trade Promotion Org., New Delhi

ITA 2508/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1919/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.3359/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.2508/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ADIT (E), Inv. Circle (1), vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi. Pragati Bhawan, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAATI2955C) ITA No.3135/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) JDIT (E), Range 1, vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi. Pragati Bhawan, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi –…

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. India Trade Promotion Org., New Delhi

ITA 1919/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1919/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.3359/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.2508/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ADIT (E), Inv. Circle (1), vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi. Pragati Bhawan, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAATI2955C) ITA No.3135/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) JDIT (E), Range 1, vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi. Pragati Bhawan, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi –…

ACIT-(E), Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Educational and Cultural Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1514/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…inguished by the Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decisions. 21. The issue raised by the revenue in the ground of appeal is thus no longer res integra and has been decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli, 330 ITR 16 (P&H). The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after considering several decisions on that issue and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra), came to the conclusion that depreciation is allowable on capital assets on the income of the charitable trust for determining the quantum of funds which have to be…

Bmtc, Bengaluru vs. Addl.D.I.T., Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.532/Bang/2014 and 779/Bang/2013 are

ITA 779/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 18Section 2(15)

…ch income. It was so held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) , following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and dis…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. T.A. Pai Management Institute, Mangaluru

In the result, Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 2688/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2688/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. T. A. Pai Management Institute, Income-Tax (Exemptions), Post Box No.9, Circle–1, 80 Badagabettu, Manipal, Mangalore. Pan : Aaatt 2248 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri. M. Sridhar Kamath, Ca Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Sridhar Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 10(2)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…g s the income. It was so held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society [20111330 ITR 21 (P&H), following -CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli [20111330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in Page 7 of 12 determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 3 (SC) have been referr…

Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

…ch income. It was so held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) , following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and dis…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyapeetha Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…uch income. It was so held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H), following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : ITA Nos.2707 to 2709/Bang/2017 CO Nos.40 to 42/Band/2018 Page 34 of 41 (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court…

Foundation for Indian Sporting Talent (Fist), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bagalore

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1711/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…uch income. It was so held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H), following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and dis…

Foundation for Indian Sporting Talent (Fist), Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-17(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1710/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…uch income. It was so held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H), following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and dis…

Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-17(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Foundation for Indian Sporting Talent (Ifst), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1666/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…uch income. It was so held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H), following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and dis…

Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemtions), Circle-17(1), Bangaloe vs. M/S Foundation for Indian Sporting Talent (Fist), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1665/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…uch income. It was so held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H), following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and dis…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. M/S. Institute of Marketing & Management, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 3632/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 2(15)

…s type, as rightly distinguished by the CIT(Appeals).” 22. The above view is also supported by ‘CIT Vs. Tiny Tots Educational Society’, 330 ITR 21 (P&H), ‘CIT Vs. Shri Gujrati Samaj (Regd.), (2012) 349 ITR 559(MP) and ‘ CIT Vs. Market Committee, Pipli, (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H). 23. In view of the above settled position of law, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and reject ground nos. 2 and 3.” 9.1 This issue has also been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona, 402 ITR 441 (SC) in favour of the assessee. Thus, respectfully following the decision of t…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. M/S. Institute of Marketing & Management, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 3631/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 2(15)

…s type, as rightly distinguished by the CIT(Appeals).” 22. The above view is also supported by ‘CIT Vs. Tiny Tots Educational Society’, 330 ITR 21 (P&H), ‘CIT Vs. Shri Gujrati Samaj (Regd.), (2012) 349 ITR 559(MP) and ‘ CIT Vs. Market Committee, Pipli, (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H). 23. In view of the above settled position of law, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and reject ground nos. 2 and 3.” 9.1 This issue has also been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona, 402 ITR 441 (SC) in favour of the assessee. Thus, respectfully following the decision of t…

Assistant Oint Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Pyc Hindu Gymkhana, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 187/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Pathak
Section 11Section 2(15)

…T v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Born) held that depreciation is allowable on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under Section 11 in past years. b. CIT v. Market Committee Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) 3.4] Further the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 inserted sub- section (6) to provide that depreciation shall not be allowed as deduction in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income u/s.11. However the above amendment is applicable only from Assessment Year 2015-16 and the following H…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2621/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 70

…ssment years and accordingly, he disallowed the set off of loss of earlier deficit with current year income. 3. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee relied upon the following decisions of allowability of depreciation:- 1) CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli, 330 ITR 16 (2011) (P&H); 2) CIT vs. Rajpur Pallottine Society, 180 ITR 579 (1989)(MP); 3) CIT vs. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cnnan Chetty Charities, 135 ITR 198 (1982) (Mad); 4) CIT vs. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust, 1198 ITR 598 (1992) (Guj). 5) CIT vs. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne, 146 ITR 28 (1984) (Karn). 6) CIT vs. Institute of Bankin…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2620/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 70

…ssment years and accordingly, he disallowed the set off of loss of earlier deficit with current year income. 3. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee relied upon the following decisions of allowability of depreciation:- 1) CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli, 330 ITR 16 (2011) (P&H); 2) CIT vs. Rajpur Pallottine Society, 180 ITR 579 (1989)(MP); 3) CIT vs. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cnnan Chetty Charities, 135 ITR 198 (1982) (Mad); 4) CIT vs. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust, 1198 ITR 598 (1992) (Guj). 5) CIT vs. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne, 146 ITR 28 (1984) (Karn). 6) CIT vs. Institute of Bankin…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi vs. Lok Shikshana Trust, Hubballi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2598/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: None
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ch income. It was so held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) , following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and dis…

Tilla Baba Farid Religious & Charitable Society, Faridkot vs. The Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 621/ASR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 621/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Kataria (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (D.R.)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)

…sets, would definitely stand to be allowed, even as explained by the Board per its Circular No. 5-P (LXX-6) dated 19.06.1968. This, in fact, represents trite law and is also the premise for a claim of depreciation (refer: CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli [2011] 330 ITR 16 (P&H); CIT v. Society of Sisters of St. Anne [1984] 146 ITR 28 (Kar); CIT v. P.K. Badiani [1970] 76 ITR 369 (Bom)). The non-booking of depreciation in accounts, though essential inasmuch as it cannot be unaccounted, would not in our view be fatal. The first appellate authority ought to have issued specific directions in this regard Tilla Baba Far…

ITO (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Sri Sri Radha Damodar Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4336/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhito (E)-2(3) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 513, 5Th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. Pan:Aafts2570L (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (E) I (1) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 504,5Th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. Pan:Aafts2570L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Hiten Chande ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar ( Sr DR)
Section 11Section 253Section 254(1)

…claiming double deduction on account of depreciation on the same very assets, we are of the view that there was no double deduction claimed by the assessee. Recently the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) after considering various decisions while distinguishing the decision in Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) has held as under (page 20 & 21):- "In the present case, the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been suggested by learned counsel for the Revenue. The income of the assessee being exemp…