CIT v. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee

366 ITR 51High Court2014#6658 most cited

What is CIT v. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee authority for?

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction for a charitable trust even when the cost of the asset has been treated as an application of income under Section 11.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee · Section 11 · Section 32 · charitable trust · depreciation · application of income · income computation · commercial manner

Judgments citing CIT v. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee

ACIT, Circle 1(2) vs. M/S. Serajuddin and Co

ITA/44/2022HC Orissa15 Mar 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Kolkata vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir Education Society

ITAT/44/2022HC Calcutta26 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 26Th July, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv. Md. Afzal Ansari, Adv. … For Respondent

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 260A

…he facts and the circumstances of the case, disallowance of Rs.2,84,67,351/- claimed towards depreciation. The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Siliguri Regulated Market Committee (2014) 366 ITR 51, which has been accepted by the department. Moreover, on this issue, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed departmental appeal in the case of Rajasthan and Gujarat Charitable Foundation, Poona ? (ii) Whether the addition of Rs.8,40,000/- towards capital gain from sale of cars. The Learned Income Tax Appellant Tribunal has considered that capital…

Vidya Bharati Society for Education & Scientific Advancement, Kolkata vs. ACIT(Exemption) Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2398/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

…this Tribunal in the 18. Before parting, we would like to observe that though the Ld. CIT(A) was aware that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta has passed an order in a similar case CIT Vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee reported in (2014) 366 ITR 51 (Cal) and allowed the claim of depreciation and though the ratio of the judgment of jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Ld. CIT(A), he has preferred to apply the ratio of the Tribunal at Chennai, which is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of State of West Bengal. In our considered view, such action of the Ld. CIT(A) is not in c…

DCIT(Examption), Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir Education Society, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2002/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2002/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit(Exemption), Circle- Vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir 1(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)

…5 but in assessee`s case under consideration the assessment year is 2012-13, therefore amended section 11(6) does not apply to the assessee. Hence, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee (2014) 366 ITR 51,will hold good, wherein it was held that the claim of depreciation is to be allowed even if the cost of the asset is treated as application. Findings of the Hon`ble Court is given below: “Section 11, read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or religious trust - Income from property held under (Depreciation allowance) - Wheth…

Jha Educational Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO(Exemption), Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 148Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…n the case of Director of IT (Exemp.) and another - vs. - AL Amen Charitable Trust reported in (2016) 383 ITR 517 (Kar). Accordingly, Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of CIT - Vs- Siliguri Accumulated Market Committee Report in (2014) 366 ITR 51(Calcutta) has allowed depreciation, in the similar facts of the case. It is respectfully submitted that precedent and judgment of Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta should be followed in the State of West Bengal, and depreciation as such should be allowed. It is submitted that I have already filed a copy of the judgment in the matter of…

ITO(E), WD-1(4), Kolkata vs. Panchajanya Trust, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Das, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 143(3)

…mendment in sub-section (6) to section 11 of the Act, the does not applicable to the assessee under consideration. We note that the decision of the Hon`ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee (2014) 366 ITR 51,is applicable to the assessee, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that depreciation claim is allowable even if asset had been claimed as application by assessee trust . Findings of the court is given below: “Court had considered the submissions and perused the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court as also th…

Panchajanya Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, (Exemption), Ward-1(4), Koklata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1841/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Das, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 143(3)

…mendment in sub-section (6) to section 11 of the Act, the does not applicable to the assessee under consideration. We note that the decision of the Hon`ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee (2014) 366 ITR 51,is applicable to the assessee, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that depreciation claim is allowable even if asset had been claimed as application by assessee trust . Findings of the court is given below: “Court had considered the submissions and perused the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court as also th…

Himadri Memorial Cancer Welfare Trust, Kolkata vs. Jdit (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal fails

ITA 2275/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm ] I.T.A No. 2275/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Himadri Memorial Cancer Welfare Trust -Vs- Jdit(E), Kolkata [Pan: Aaath 4859 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Patodia, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.S. Tauheed, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…to Rs. 22,16,754/- on its fixed assets, when, such claim for depreciation up to the assessment year 2014-15 has been held allowable in the decision of the jurisdictional High Court at Kolkata, in the case of CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee (2014) 366 ITR 51 (Cal). 5. After hearing the rival submissions. We find that the issue in question is covered the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee dated 13.02.2014 reported in [2014]366 ITR 51(Cal) wherein it is held as under: 5. To sum up, the business income of the trust as disclosed by the acc…

Services Association of Seventh Day Adventists P Ltd, Chennai vs. Jdit Exemption, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

Section 11Section 12ASection 25Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या%यक सद"य के सम& BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2419/Mds/2017 %नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/s.Services Association of Seventh- The Joint Director of Income- Day Adventists Pvt. Ltd., Tax (Exemptions), AA 148, III Avenue, Chennai-600 034. Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. [PAN: AAACS 9035 J] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) : अपीलाथ( क+ ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.S.Viswanathan,…

ADIT (E), New Delhi vs. Fortune Society for Development and Promotion of International Business, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

…Vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (330 ITR 21) = 2010-TIOL-550-HC-P&H-IT; Page 16 of 18 Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation (358 ITR 452) and the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Silluguri Regulated Market Committee (366 ITR 51). In addition, the Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 262 CTR 558 = 2012-TIOL-271-HC-DEL-IT and the Karnnataka High Court in DIT (Exem) Vs Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (2016) 67 taxmann.com 160 = 2016-TIOL-463-HC-KAR-IThave accepted the claim of the assessee distinguishing both the judgment of the Supreme Court in Escorts as well…

Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar Memorial Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions) 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1635/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 11

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज# माथन, "या'यक सद"य के सम( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vs. M/s.Rani Meyyammai Achi of The Dy. Director of Income Chettinad Charitable Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-1, Chennai. Rani Seethai Hall, Vth Floor, 603, Annasalai, Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AAATR 0715 R] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1635/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष…

Rani Meyyammai Achi of Chettinad Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions) 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1634/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 11

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज# माथन, "या'यक सद"य के सम( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vs. M/s.Rani Meyyammai Achi of The Dy. Director of Income Chettinad Charitable Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-1, Chennai. Rani Seethai Hall, Vth Floor, 603, Annasalai, Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AAATR 0715 R] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1635/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष…

Rani Meyyammai Achi of Chettinad Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions) 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1633/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 11

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज# माथन, "या'यक सद"य के सम( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vs. M/s.Rani Meyyammai Achi of The Dy. Director of Income Chettinad Charitable Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-1, Chennai. Rani Seethai Hall, Vth Floor, 603, Annasalai, Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AAATR 0715 R] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1635/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष…

ACIT(E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Padmshree Dr D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2035/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri B.C.S.NaikFor Respondent: Shri Reepal G Traishawala
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 32

…cision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court allowed the claims of the Assessee, therefore the same may be sustained. He further submits that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee [366 ITR 51] and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Market Committee Pipli [330 ITR 16] by distinguishing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India [119 ITR 43] which was relied on by the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have…

ITO (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Sathya Sai Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6567/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…placed in the paper book as per details given below: (I) CIT v. Institute of Banking, Bombay High Court (2003) 264 ITR 110 (ii) CIT v. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation (2013) 358 ITR452 (MP) (iii) CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee (2014) 366 ITR 51 (Cal) (iv) Director of Income Tax v. Vishwa Jagriti Mission (2012) 73 DTR 195 (Del.) (v) CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) (vi) CIT vs. Tiny Tots Educational Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (Punjab & Haryana) 7. She further submitted that the decision in the case of Escort Limited (supra) relied upon by the AO has been…

Eepc India, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-(Exemption)-II, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 752/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

Section 143(3)

…) has passed ex parte order. However, L’d AR of the assessee before us submitted that the issue has already been covered in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Siliguri Regulate Market Committee (2014) 366 ITR 51 (Cal). Considering the facts of the case we are of the view that one more opportunity of hearing should be given to the assessee to substantiate its claim. So in the interest of justice and fair play the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction that one more opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee to decide the is…

Asstt CIT (E) -I(1), Mumbai vs. K.J.Somaiya Trust, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3774/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 11(6)

…(Bom.)(2015), CIT vs Leelawati Mehata Medical Trust (2015) 229 Taxman 276 (Bom), DIT (E) vs Framjee Cavasjee Institute (2014) 227 taxman 266 (Mag.), DIT(E) vs Indraprashtha Cancer Society (2014) 112 DTR 345 (Del.), CIT vs Siligurhi Regulated Marekt Committee 366 ITR 51 (Cal.) and CIT vs Devi Shankuntla Tharal Charitable foundation 358 ITR 452 (MP). 3.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Section 11(6) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014. In this section, where any income is required to be applied or accumulative or set apart for application, then for s…

CIT v. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee (366 ITR 51) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax