Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute

109 CTR 463High Court1993#491 most cited

What is Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute authority for?

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

191

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Director of Income-tax v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute · 109 CTR 463 · charitable trust depreciation · section 11 · section 32 · application of income · capital expenditure · computation of trust income · depreciable assets · income from assets

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(23C)(iiiad)Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 11(6)accumulation of incomesection 11(1)(a)section 11(1)application of incomesection 10(23c)section 32capital expendituresection 28section 12asection 10section 12

Judgments citing Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute

Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Manipal Hotel & Restaurant

ITA/201/2015HC Karnataka14 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11Section 12ASection 260Section 32

…& restaurant Management College Trust 9/22 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditu…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Medical Relief Society of South Kanara

ITA/537/2017HC Karnataka14 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11Section 15Section 260Section 32

…e of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.537/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Medical Relief Society of South Kanara 9/21 in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditu…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Medical Relief

ITA/534/2017HC Karnataka14 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11Section 260Section 32

…ate of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.534/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Medical Relief Society of South Kanara 9/21 in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditu…

Commissioner of Income vs. M/S Manipal Hotel and

ITA/13/2016HC Karnataka14 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11Section 260Section 32

…14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.13 /2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Manipal Hotel and Restaurant Management College Trust 9/21 in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditu…

DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai

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

ITA 4104/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai, D.R
Section 11Section 32

…Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under: "4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowe…

M/S. Friends Charitable Society, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3298/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 4.Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because; full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

M/S Zeen -Zar Charitable Foundation Trust Noon Hospital & Research Centre, Jhalawar vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Kota

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

ITA 337/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Soni (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 32

…ffirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows : The assessee was the trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Society of the Servants of the Holy Spirit, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7021/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7021/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dy. Cit(Exemptions) – 2(1) Society Of The Servants Of The Holy Holy Spirit Hospital, Spirit बनाम/ Room No. 519, 5Th Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 093 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaas 0148 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Arju Garodia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Dharan Gandhi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.06.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 27.09.2016, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. "Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Disallowing Depreciation On Fixed Assets Of Rs. 6,82,68,576/- In Contravention Of The Decision Of Escorts Ltd. Vs Uoi 199 Itr 43 Wherein It Was Held That Since 'Section 11 Of The Income Tax Act Provides For Deduction Of Capital Expenditure Incurred On Assets Acquired For The Objects Of The Trust As Application & Does Not Specifically & Expressly Provide For Double

For Appellant: Ms. Arju GarodiaFor Respondent: Shri Dharan Gandhi
Section 11Section 32

…Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under: " 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust, The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowe…

DCIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. D.Y Patil Sports Academy, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 811/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Balan Narayanan
Section 11

…e assessee and against the Department. 6 Dr. D. Y. Patil Sports Academy 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Society of Saint Ursula, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1714/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1714/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 2(24)

…os. 3 and 4 relate to the denial of assessee's claim of depreciation of Rs.42,38,718/- on the assets. The CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. Framjee Cawsjee Institute, 109 CTR 463 (Bom). Nothing to the contrary 5 A.Y.2012-13 has been argued by the Revenue before us and therefore, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we find that the CIT(A) made no mistake in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs.42,38,718/-.Thus, Grounds of Appeal Nos.3 and 4 are also dismissed”. 8.2 Since both the issues have been…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee

ITA/239/2011HC Karnataka19 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11Section 12ASection 260Section 263Section 32

…1/17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A. No.239/2011 C/w. I.T.A. No.107/2017 IN I.T.A.No.239/2011: BETWEEN : 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX PARK VIEW BUILDING, 4TH MAIN, P.J EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIMOGA ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE APMC YARD, SAGAR ROAD, SHIMOGA …RESPONDE…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT (A) vs. M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee

ITA/107/2017HC Karnataka19 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11Section 12ASection 260Section 263Section 32

…1/17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A. No.239/2011 C/w. I.T.A. No.107/2017 IN I.T.A.No.239/2011: BETWEEN : 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX PARK VIEW BUILDING, 4TH MAIN, P.J EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIMOGA ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE APMC YARD, SAGAR ROAD, SHIMOGA …RESPONDE…

DCIT (Exemptions), Chennai vs. Sri Vekkaliamman Educational & Charitable Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2722/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2722/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Sri Vekkaliamman Educational Income Tax, Vs. & Charitable Trust, (Exemptions) No.10, East Mada Church Street, Chennai Circle, Royapuram, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 013. [Pan Aafts 7863Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. G. Seetharaman, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 32

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had C.A. No. 7186/ 2014 etc. been al…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mohd Haji Saboo Sidik Institution, Mumbai

ITA 7019/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7019/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ Dcit (E) 2(1) Mohd. Haji Saboo Sidik R.No 519, 5 T H Floor, Institution, Piramal Chamber, C/O. Anjuman I Islam, V. Lalbaug, Badruddin Tayabji Marg, Lower Parel, 92, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabtm6917D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Jayesh ChughFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai , DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under : "4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because; full capital expenditure had been allowed in…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Valliammai Society, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 440/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 440/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.48/Chny/2017 (In Ita No.440/Chny/2017) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Purushottam, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 133(6)

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had C.A. No. 7186/ 2014 etc. been al…

Bannariamman Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3342/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3342/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Bannariamman Educational Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Trust, Income Tax, No.1212, Trichy Road, Exemptions, Coimbatore 641 018. Coimbatore. [Pan Aaatb 1235C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 28Section 32

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had C.A. No. 7186/ 2014 etc. been al…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1634/PUN/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(1), Aurangabad …. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Mgm Campus, N-6, Cidco, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad Pan: Aaatm4256E अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Pramod Shingte

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35

…essee in reply, explained that the depreciation on assets of Trust was to be deducted while computing income of Trust. In this regard, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom) and also in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom). Further, reliance was placed on the judgments of other High Courts. The Assessing Officer however, held that by allowing depreciation on such capital assets would amount to double deduction as per the ratio of judgment in Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1633/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(1), Aurangabad …. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Mgm Campus, N-6, Cidco, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad Pan: Aaatm4256E अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Pramod Shingte

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35

…essee in reply, explained that the depreciation on assets of Trust was to be deducted while computing income of Trust. In this regard, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom) and also in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom). Further, reliance was placed on the judgments of other High Courts. The Assessing Officer however, held that by allowing depreciation on such capital assets would amount to double deduction as per the ratio of judgment in Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of…

DCIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. Lokhandwala Foundations, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1683/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dcit (E) 1(1), Vs. M/S.Lokhandwala Foundations R.No.506, 5Th Floor 48, Indranarayan Road Piramal Chambers Santacruz (West) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 054 Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aaatl0068K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32fSection 80G

…Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under : "4, Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exempt/on) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the 4 M/s. Lokhandwala Foundations Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because; full capi…

Indira Ganesan Educational and Charitable Trust, Trichy vs. DCIT, Trichy

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

ITA 250/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.250/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Indira Ganesan Educational & The Deputy Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, No. 72, Vs. Income Tax, West Boulevard Road, Circle I(2), Trichirapalli 620 008. Trichirapalli 620 001. [Pan: Aaati4222Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Narayanan, Retd. Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M. Narayanan, Retd. Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 32

…section 11 of the Act, the same has to be computed commercially and depreciation has to be allowed. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted 3 I.T.A. No.250/M/17 that the assessee is eligible for depreciation even though the cost of asset was claimed as application of income in the year of acquisition. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that, admittedly, the assessee claimed…