Escorts Ltd. v. UOI

199 ITR 43Supreme Court of India1993#306 most cited

What is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI authority for?

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

267

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI · 199 ITR 43 · Section 11 · Section 48 · double deduction · same expenditure · application of income · charitable trust · cost of acquisition

Also reported as

1 SCC 249

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12AASection 48Section 10(23C)(iv)Section 11(2)Section 14

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(v)application of incomerevenue expendituresection 36(1)section 36commissioner (appeals)section 10section 11previous yearsection 143(2)transferprescribed

Judgments citing Escorts Ltd. v. UOI

The Christia Literature Society, Chennai vs. JCIT (OSD), Chennai

In the result, I set aside the orders of the lower authorities

ITA 2818/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Smt. B. Jaisheila, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sahadevan, IRS, JCIT
Section 11

…so noted that depreciation of "2,00,167/- claimed by the assessee were on :- 7 -: assets, cost of which was already allowed as application of income. Relying on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd and Another vs. Union of India and Others 199 ITR 43, he denied claim of such depreciation. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. 7. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Argument of the assessee was that publishing and selling of religious books was a public religious activity, and for this it relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Arsha Vijinanna Tr…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Navi Mumbai vs. The Santacruz Resident Association, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6637/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Dcit (E) 2 (1), Mumbai Vs. The Santacruz Resident Association, Smt Bcj General Hospital, S.V. Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan/Gir No. Aaats8214L Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…at double deduction cannot be allowed under any circumstances. It may also be pertinent to mention that the ratio of 264 ITR 110 (Bom) was pronounced by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court without taking into consideration the ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court in 199 ITR 43. It may also be further pertinent to mention that the jurisdiction in the 264 ITR 110 (Bom) was accepted by the Department in view of low tax effect involved and not in view of the merits of the case. Therefore, relying on the ratio of the Apex Court in 199 ITR 43 Escorts Limited, since the claim of depreciation of Rs.63,66,643/- amounts to double…

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)

…2/08/2016 for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. In both the years grievance of revenue relates to allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation on fixed assets in contravention of decision of Escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43. At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2008- 09, wherein exactly similar issue was decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 24/01/2014 after having the following observation:- 3. The assessee is admittedly a charitable trust, duly registered under section 12A of the Act. In th…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Shanthi Charitable Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 896/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G. Kamaladhar, DRFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ B ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.896/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward 3, Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. M/s. Shanthi Charitable Trust, Kaggadasapura Main Road, Vignanagar, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore-560 075. ….. Respondent. PAN AAFTS 7870M Appellant By : Shri G. Kamaladhar, DR. Respondent By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate. Date of Hearing : 6.4.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 18.04.2017. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This ap…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumar: (A.Y : 2010-11) Acit (E) 2(1) Vs. M/S Mandke Foundation R.No.510, Piramal Chambers Rao Saheb Achut Rao Lalbaug Parel Patwardhan Marg Mumbai – 400 012 Four Bunglow Andheri (West) Mumbai - 400 053 Pan : Aaatm4557G (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shrikant Namdeo प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Sanghvi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-1, Mumbai Dated 05.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds : "1. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Disallowing

For Appellant: Shrikant NamdeoFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi
Section 1Section 11Section 143(3)Section 32

…in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of disallowing 2 M/s Mandke Foundation ITA No.2551/Mum/2015, A.Y.2010-11 depreciation on fixed assets of Rs.58,85, 13,644/- 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 capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for the objects of the trust as application and does not specifically & expressly provide for double deduction on account of depreciation on the same very assets acquired from such capital expenditure, no deduction…

ITO (E) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Parmeshwaridevi Gordhandas Garodia Charitable Trust, Mumbai

ITA 2661/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2661/Mum/2015,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 Ito (E)- 2(2), Parmeshwaridevi Gordhandas Garodia Room No. 4502, 5Th Floor, बनाम Charitable Trust, 153, Garodia Nagar, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400077 Vs. Parel, Mumbai-4000012. Pan: Aaatp0083C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Anu Krishna Aggarwal (Dr) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Rahul K. Hakani (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K. Hakani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Anu Krishna Aggarwal (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 32

…g grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of disallowing depreciation on fixed assets of Rs. 70,55,379/- 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 capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for the object of the trust as application, and does not. specifically & expressly provide for double deduction on account of depreciation on the same very assets acquired from such capital expenditure, no deductio…

Institute of Management and Advance Global Excellence (Image), Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(Exemptions), Bhubaneswar

ITA 225/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Me, Ld A.R. Of The Assessee Filed Assessment Orders For The Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-2010 Passed

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 32

…the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purposes of the trust. There is no double deduction claimed by the assessee as canvassed by the Revenue. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. case [1993] 199 ITR 43 is distinguishable for the above reasons. It cannot be held that double benefit is given in allowing claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11. The questions proposed have, thus, to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee". 9. Therefore, I set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the…

Diocese of Gulbarga, Gulbarga vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1662/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Km/S. Diocese Of Gulbarga, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bishops House, Mother Of Divine Circle-1, Grace, Church Road, Gulbarga (Kalaburagi). Gulbarga– 585103. Pan : Aabtb0999C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. S. Praveena, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…iation 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 distinguished 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 C…

DDIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4768/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

…ion, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law. 3 The Appellant prays that, to the extent of above grounds, the order of the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) I, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 9. In assessment year 2006-07, r…

Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), Mumbai

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4468/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

…ion, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law. 3 The Appellant prays that, to the extent of above grounds, the order of the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) I, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 9. In assessment year 2006-07, r…

DDIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 1809/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

…ion, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law. 3 The Appellant prays that, to the extent of above grounds, the order of the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) I, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 9. In assessment year 2006-07, r…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3653/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

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

Section 11

…assesee’s claim of depreciation of Rs. 1,39,49,018/- without appreciating the fact that the said claim of depreciation amounts to claiming a double deduction, which in view of the ratio of the judgements in the cases of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 and (1992) 65 Tax Man 320 (SC) in the case J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Union of India cannot be allowed. 2)“The Appellant prays that the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals)-1, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3)“The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 2.Followi…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3652/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

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

Section 11

…assesee’s claim of depreciation of Rs. 1,39,49,018/- without appreciating the fact that the said claim of depreciation amounts to claiming a double deduction, which in view of the ratio of the judgements in the cases of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 and (1992) 65 Tax Man 320 (SC) in the case J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Union of India cannot be allowed. 2)“The Appellant prays that the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals)-1, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3)“The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 2.Followi…

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

…assesee’s claim of depreciation of Rs. 1,39,49,018/- without appreciating the fact that the said claim of depreciation amounts to claiming a double deduction, which in view of the ratio of the judgements in the cases of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 and (1992) 65 Tax Man 320 (SC) in the case J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Union of India cannot be allowed. 2)“The Appellant prays that the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals)-1, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3)“The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 2.Followi…

Shriram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation, New Delhi vs. Jdit (Exemptions), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 920/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shriram Scientific & Vs. Jdit (Exemptions), Range- Industrial Research Ii, New Delhi Foundation, Diamond Press Building, 8E , Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Pan : Aaats0867K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(1)

…gain Rs 100[repayment of loan]. In other words, against a receipt of the out-go is to the tune of Rs.200/-. ” 3.3 In the relevant paragraph No. 6.3 and 6.4, AO has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India, 199 ITR 43 and in the case of Laxmilpat Singhania vs. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 291, wherein, double deduction has not been allowed in the 7 AY: 2008-09 consideration of justice and equity. So, AO has relied on the ratio of the above mentioned two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court so as to make an addition of Rs. 1,70,00,000/-. In this regard before me Id. AR o…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Charitable Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 899/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri S.R. Raghunatha, C.A
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

….5 as under : “ 4.2 I have considered rival contentions carefully. On the issue of disallowance of depreciation on the ground that it is a double deduction since investment in asset was allowed as application of income, relying on the case of Escorts Ltd. in 199 ITR 43 (SC) by the A.O. It is argued before me that this is a covered issue and the facts of case cited are different. The issue is covered by the decision of 6 Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28. The appellant cited various other cases including Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust Vs. Addl.…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.1040/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle 1, Mangaluru. …. Appellant. Vs. Vishwachetan Foundation, IBMR, 1st Main, Jayanagar, Opp. KIMS, Vidyanagar, Hubbali. ….. Respondent. PAN AAATV 9145M Appellant By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT (D.R) Respondent By : Shri H. N. Khincha, C.A. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 11.8.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This…

M/S. Lord Jesus Education Society, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1648/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 12ASection 142(1)

…le Punjab & Haryana High Court vide its order dated 28.7.2010 have upheld the view that allowing depreciation does not amount to double deduction. It may be pointed out that the effect of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 has been considered and after which it has been held that allowing depreciation as application does not amount to double deduction. It was observed by the High Court in Para 9 of its order as under:- "9. In the present case, the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of 10 depreciation as has been suggested by learned counsel for t…

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

…extracted as under:- “1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of disallowing depreciation on fixed assets of Rs. 45,00,115/- in contravention of the decision of Escorts Ltd vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since section 11 of the Act provides for deduction capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for the objects of the trust as application and does not specifically & expressly provide for double deduction on account of depreciation on the same very assets acquired from such capital expenditure, no deduction shall be a…

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)

…apital expenditure in the preceding assessment year and the claim of depreciation on the already exempted capital assets amounts to double deduction. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Page 3 of 11 UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC), the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.3,27,216 as non-application u/s 11. 4. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee relied on the decision of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of St. Anne, 146 ITR 28, which was distinguished by the ld. CIT(Appeals). He placed reliance up…