How many judgments cite CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli?

113 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli (330 ITR 16), spanning 2013 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(23C)(iv), Section 11, Section 11(1)(a), Section 11(2), Section 12A, Section 13.

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 11 Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12A Section 13 Section 14 Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli

M/S. Sakthi Foundation, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2076/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.Sahadevan, JCIT

Section 11Section 32

…s not applicable in this case. 13. We have carefully gone through all the judgments and decisions cited by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, which are as under:- 1. DIT v. VishwaJagriti Mission (2012) 73 DTR (Del) 195 2. CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) 3. CIT v. Society of Sisters of St.Anne (1984) 146 ITR 28 (Kar) 4. CIT v. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust (1999) 240 ITR 513 (Cal) 5. CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) 16 I.T.A. Nos.2075 & 2076/ Mds/2016 6. (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj) CIT v. ShethManilalRanchhoddasVishramBhavan Trust 7. CIT v. Raipur Pallottine Society (…

Souther India Mills Association, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2075/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.Sahadevan, JCIT

Section 11Section 32

M.L. Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3893/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

…her it amounts to double deduction considered both the decisions i.e. the Institute of Banking from Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Escorts Ltd. from Hon'ble Apex Court and also the decision from Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Market Committee Pipli 330 ITR 16 (P & H) and following the aforementioned decision decided the issue against the Revenue. It is worth mentioning that the decision from Hon'ble Bombay High Court is a later decision considering another decision in DIT(E) vs Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 and also another decision from Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Shri Plot Swetamber…

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. Vishwachetan Foundation, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1040/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri H. N. Khincha, C.A

Section 11Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)(a)Section 28

…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…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council, Mumbai

In the result, 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5756/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.5756/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.5757/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Dcit (E)-2(1), फनाभ/ The Gem & Jewellery Export Mumbai. Promotion Council, Vs. Tower-A, Aw 1010, G Block, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaatt3202H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Appellant By: Shri C.W. Angolkar, Sr. Ar None आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.4696/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009) फनाभ/ Ito (E)-2(3), Shushrusha Citizen’S Coop. R.No.513, Piramal Chambers, Hospitals Ltd., Vs. Lalbaug Parel, 698, Ranade Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai – 400 028. Pan:Aaats0257K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Appellant By:Shri K. Ravi Kiran, Sr. Ar Respondent By: Shri Mihir A. Tanna आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.5744/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Ito (E)-2(3), Sameeksha Trust, R.No.513, Piramal Chambers, 320-321, A-Z Industrial Premises Vs. Lalbaug Parel, Coop Society, Ganpatrao Kadam Mumbai – 400 012. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-013. Pan:Aaats0581L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Appellant By:Shri K. Ravi Kiran, Sr. Ar Shri Dhavi Sanghvi आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.4988/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) Dcit (E)-2(1), फनाभ/ Samundra Institue Of Maritime 510, 5Th Floor, Piramal Studies Trust, Vs. 507, 5Th Floor, Sai Commercial Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012. Complex, Bks Devashi Marg, Govandi, Mumbai – 400 088. Pan:Aaacts9557L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Shri K. Ravi Kiran Shri Suresh Mukadam

For Appellant: Shri C.W. Angolkar, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mihir A. Tanna

Section 11Section 32

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “J” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.5756/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.5757/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) DCIT (E)-2(1), फनाभ/ The Gem & Jewellery Export Mumbai. Promotion Council, Vs. Tower-A, AW 1010, G Block, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AAATT3202H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Appellant by: Shri C.W. Angolkar, Sr.…

Sanghamithra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1205/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavansanghamithra Rural Financial Services, 612, 1 ‘C’ Main Road, Domlur Layout, Bangalore-560 071. ….. Appellant Pan: Aaecs 0038H Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax(Exemptions), Circle-17(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-07-2016

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 25Section 35(2)(iv)

M/S Integrated Education Research Centre for Engineering and Management, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result the appeal is allowed while the stay application is dismissed

ITA 620/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Snehotpal Datta, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…be allowed even if the cost of the asset is treated as application. In that case tile following judgments were referred: i.ClT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection reported in 264 ITR 110 {Mumbai} [2004] ii. CIT Vs. Market Committee, Pipli reported in 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) [2011 ] iii. CIT vs. Trustee of H.E.H. Nizam's Supplemental Religious Endowment Trust reported in 127 ITR 378 (A.P.) [1981] iv. ClT vs. Rcao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities reported in [1982) 135 ITR 485 [Mad} v. ClT vs. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust reported in 240 ITR 513 (Cal) [19991 vi. CIT vs. Jayashree Chaity Trust…

The Music Academy Madras, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 1098/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Music Academy Madras, The Deputy Director Of Income Tax No.168 (Old No.306), Ttk Road, V. (Exemptions), Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Chennai - 600 034 . Pan : Aaatt 0256 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 32

…not applicable in this case. 13. We have carefully gone through all the judgments and decisions cited by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, which are as under:- 1. DIT v. Vishwa Jagriti Mission (2012) 73 DTR (Del) 195 2. CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) 3. CIT v. Society of Sisters of St.Anne (1984) 146 ITR 28 (Kar) 4. CIT v. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust (1999) 240 ITR 513 (Cal) 5. CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) 6. CIT v. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj) Vishram Bhavan Trust 7. CIT v. Raipur Pallottine Society (1989) 180 ITR 579 (MP) 8. CIT v. I…

ACIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mandke Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3837/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Me.

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra B. Sanghavi

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…High Court:- 3 1. ITO vs. Bai Kabibai & Hansraj Moraji Charity Trust, ITA No.5842/M/2011. 2. DIT vs. Framjee Cawasjee Institute- 49 taxmann.com 22 (Bombay HC) 3. ACIT vs. Shri Adichunchanaagiri Shikshana Trust, 19 ITR (T) 828 (4) CIT vs. Market Committee – 330 ITR 16 (P&H, HC) For the reason that the decision of the CIT(Appeals) is based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, no interference is called for and accordingly, Revenue fails on this issue. 5. The second issue raised by the Revenue is with regard to the decision of the CIT(Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forwar…

M/S Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 686/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri C.Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Ramesha, JCIT

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 60

…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…

M/S Pratham Books (Trust), Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., CAFor Respondent: Shri Korra Meghanath Chowhan, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

…case of CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne (146 ITR 28), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain (1994) Tax LR 1084, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli (330 ITR 16) and the jurisdictional Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust v. ACIT (ITA No.775/Bang/2009). 5. It was further submitted that the AO also calculated the accumulation of income @ 15% of net income after reducing revenue Page 3 of 12 expenditure. In support of its contention, the assessee relied on the f…

Prarthana Education Society, Bangalore vs. Dy.DIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filled by the assessee is partly

ITA 730/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80G

…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 ITA No.730(B)/2015] Page 14 of 16 depreciation is allowable on capital assets on the income of the charitable trust for determining the…

Al- Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, Bangalore vs. Dy.D.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 703/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaal-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, No.3, Miller Tank Road, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560052. … Appellant Pan: Aaata 2729E Vs. Deputy Director Of Income-Tax(Exemptions), Circle 17(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gurumurthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 1Section 10Section 11(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, No.3, Miller Tank Road, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560052. … Appellant PAN: AAATA 2729E Vs. Deputy Director of Income-tax(Exemptions), Circle 17(1), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by: Shri Gurumurthy, Advocate. Respondent by: Shri P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR). Date of hearing : 07/10/2015. Date of pronouncement: 16/10/2015. O R D E R Per VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20/3/2009 of th…

DDIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Accion Technical Advisors India, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

Podar Education Trust, Bangalore vs. Asst. DIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1023/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ed to the accounts of the charitable institution is to be deducted to arrive at the income available for application to charitable and religious purpose. The learned AR of the assessee has also relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Market committee (330 ITR 16) (P&H) ii. CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (330 ITR 21) (P&H) The learned AR of the assessee then submitted that by following the above decisions, co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Adichunchangiri Sikshana Trust in ITA Nos.774 & 775/Bang/2011 dated 3/8/2012 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee. He has poin…

Malviya Public School, New Delhi vs. DDIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 11

…ion and books of accounts on test check basis, the assessee’s total income returned at nil is accepted.” 4. In appeal before the First Appellate Authority, reliance was placed by the assessee upon the following decisions:- 1) CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli, 330 ITR 16 {2011} (P&H). 2) CIT vs. Raipur 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 Banking, 264…

Juothy Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 662/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Babu Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Academy of General Education, Manipal

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 636/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal

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

ITA 933/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, C.A

Section 10Section 12ASection 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 8 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 d…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II

Section 268A

…nguished 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…