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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Sri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust

In the result, all the appeals are

ITA/384/2016HC Karnataka28 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 260Section 263

…Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not…

ADIT (E) II(1), Mumbai vs. Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is hereby dismissed

ITA 6853/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri G.S. Pannuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax M/S. Jaslok Hospital & (Exemption)-Ii(1), Research Centre, 507, 5Th Floor, 15, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Piramal Chambers Vs. Mumbai – 400 026 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaaaj 0028Q M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Perdiwalla, A.R. & Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Jain V.P, D.R
Section 11

…a High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs CIT 76 DTR (Ker) 372 has decided 2 M/s. Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre the issue in the favour of the department after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd (199 ITR 43). 3 Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s. 11 by ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer in his order has pointed out that assessee runs a pharmacy store in its hospital for profit motive and without approaching facts that the profit…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit(Exemption)-2(1), Society Of The Servant Of The 5Th Floor, Holy Spirit, बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Holy Spirit Hospital, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400092 Pan. No. Aaaas0148J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 256(1)

…n the basis of material available on record. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Smt. N.V. Nadkarni, defended the conclusion arrived at in the assessment order by contended that the impugned issue is covered by the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Escorts Ltd. (199 ITR 43)(SC). 2.1. We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee trust is registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), declared income of Rs.66,733/- in its return filed on 29/09/2008 annexed with income and expenditure account, audited ba…

ITO (E) -I(1), Mumbai vs. Dr..D.Y Patil Sports Academy, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6879/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

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

…1,50,153/- (Assessment year 2011-12), relying upon the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Institute of Banking Personal Services (264 ITR 110)(Bom.), ignoring the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Escorts Ltd. vs UOI (199 ITR 43)(SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the double deduction cannot be presumed, if the same is not specifically provided by the law in addition to normal deduction and further to allow carry forward of deficit of excess expenditure. 2. During hearing, the ld. Sr. DR, Shri B.S. Bist, advanced arguments which are identical to the gr…

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)

…itable purpose and again in the form of depreciation on the very same cost over a number of years of life of the asset. The respondent was of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 was squarely applicable, wherein it was held that when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on assets used for scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset. The respondent accordingly issued a show cause notice dated 28.10.2015 proposing to revise the order of the AO passed u/s.143(…

DDIT (E) I (2), Mumbai vs. Sayaji U-Ba Khin Memorial Trust, Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed and appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2797/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1708/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Sayaji-U-Ba Khin Memorial The Asstt. Director Of बनाम/ Trust Income Tax (Exempt) 1(2) Vs. 2Nd Floor, Green House, Room No.504, Green Street, Fort, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400023 Parel, Mumbai - 400012 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2797/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) The Asstt. Director Of Sayaji-U-Ba Khin Memorial बनाम/ Income Tax (Exempt) 1(2) Trust Vs. Room No.504, 2Nd Floor, Green House, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Green Street, Fort, Parel, Mumbai-400023 Mumbai - 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt0114E

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth & RajnikantFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…g on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported at 264 ITR A.Y. 2005-06 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments 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, in addition to normal deduction. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of depreciation, when the Delhi High Court in the case of Charnjiv Charit…

Sayaji-U Ba Khin Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) 1(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed and appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1708/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1708/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Sayaji-U-Ba Khin Memorial The Asstt. Director Of बनाम/ Trust Income Tax (Exempt) 1(2) Vs. 2Nd Floor, Green House, Room No.504, Green Street, Fort, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400023 Parel, Mumbai - 400012 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2797/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) The Asstt. Director Of Sayaji-U-Ba Khin Memorial बनाम/ Income Tax (Exempt) 1(2) Trust Vs. Room No.504, 2Nd Floor, Green House, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Green Street, Fort, Parel, Mumbai-400023 Mumbai - 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt0114E

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth & RajnikantFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147

…g on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported at 264 ITR A.Y. 2005-06 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments 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, in addition to normal deduction. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of depreciation, when the Delhi High Court in the case of Charnjiv Charit…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 957/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raothe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Exemption), Circle-1, Mangalore. . Appellant Vs. Vishwachetan Foundation Ibmr, 1St Main, Jaynagar, Opp: Kims, Hubbali. Appellant By : Shri S Nambirajan, Jcit Respondent By : Shri Naginchand Khincha, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17-5-2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-5-2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S Nambirajan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha, CA
Section 11Section 148Section 28Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…/B/15 2 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CIT(A) was correct in not following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., another Vs. Union of India, 199 ITR 43 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset and in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit an assessee two deductions? 2)…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Karnataka Reddy Janasangha

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/56/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

…Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not…

The Director of Income Tax vs. International Institute of Information Technology

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/414/2010HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

…Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not…

The Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Gokula Education Foundation (Medical)

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/430/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

…Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not…

The Director of Income Tax Exemptions vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/62/2010HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

…Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not…

The Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Gokula Education Foundation

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/431/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

…Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Adichunchungiri

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/233/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

…Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not…

Commissioner of Income vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

…Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not…

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

…owed as such. According to the AO, allowing such a claim would amount to allowing double deduction. On the facts of the present case, he was of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 is squarely applicable, wherein it has been categorically held that when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset. 12. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Socie…

ITO(E), New Delhi vs. M/S Calorex Foundation, New Delhi

ITA 2876/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Kesang Y Shirpa, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Shri Ashish Goel, CAs
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 80G

…self. By allowing the claim of depreciation the Ld. CIT(A) has, in effect, granted double benefit to the Assessee and hence the decision is erroneous and contrary to the decision of 2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43. 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that income on sale of capital assets has to be taken at net value instead of gross value amount at Rs.84,0001- as full value of cost of capital assets already stood allowed to the Assessee as application on income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of…

Fashion Design Council of India, New Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Lalitha Krishnamarthy,CAFor Respondent: MS. Nandita Kanchan, CIT. DR
Section 11(1)(B)Section 11(2)Section 12

…t in DCIT (Exe) V Trustees of Singhanai Charitable Trust 199 ITR 819 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this count. Regarding the disallowance of depreciation the CIT (A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 holding that it is double deduction dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us. 04. Before us ld. AR submitted that the object of the trust of the assessee are listed in the memorandum of association of the trust the objects of the trust are divided into main objects and ancillary obj…

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

…ction by first showing the outlay on capital asset as application of income and, thereafter claiming depreciation on the capital asset as well relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. arid Anr. vs Union of India and Ors 199 ITR 43 and the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in ITA No.42 of 2011 in the case of Lissie Medical Institution. Page 8 of 12 13. Aggrieved, before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee in support of its claim relied on the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of St. Anne, 146 ITR 28 which was followed by…

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

…the ground that claiming depreciation on assets, the cost of which was already allowed as application in earlier years amounts to double deduction. In support of his stand, the AO relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Escorts Ltd. Vs UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43(SC). 10. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and contended that, the issue of depreciation is settled now by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Society of Sisters of St. Anne (1984) 146 ITR 28 ITA No.730(B)/2015] Page 11 of 16 (Kar), wherein the Hon’ble…