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 366,470 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

ITO, Coimbatore vs. Sree Narayana Guru Educational Trust, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2536/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2535/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. K. Raghu, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12A

…st’’ and, therefore, again allowing of the depreciation on the same assets, holding it as application of income for charitable purposes would amount to allowance twice, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JK Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43). 4. The ld. CIT(A)-I should have appreciated the fact the judicial decisions relied upon by him were not accepted by the Department and further appeals were preferred. I.T.A.Nos.2535 & 2536/Mds/2014. :- 3 -: 5. The ld. CIT(A)-I ought to have observed that in the judgment of the Kerala High Court, in ITA No.42 of 2011 dated 17.02.2012, the Kera…

ITO, Coimbatore vs. Grg Trust, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2535/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2535/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. K. Raghu, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12A

…st’’ and, therefore, again allowing of the depreciation on the same assets, holding it as application of income for charitable purposes would amount to allowance twice, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JK Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43). 4. The ld. CIT(A)-I should have appreciated the fact the judicial decisions relied upon by him were not accepted by the Department and further appeals were preferred. I.T.A.Nos.2535 & 2536/Mds/2014. :- 3 -: 5. The ld. CIT(A)-I ought to have observed that in the judgment of the Kerala High Court, in ITA No.42 of 2011 dated 17.02.2012, the Kera…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S City Hospital Charitable Trust, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2015AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…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. 3. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Socie…

M/S Krupanidhi Education Trust, Bangalore vs. DIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…as such in earlier years. According to the DIT(E), doing so amounted 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. 3. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act was issued by the DIT(E). The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Co…

DDIT(E), Bangalore vs. Karnataka State Muslim Federation, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (DR)For Respondent: Shri C.R. Nulvi, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 365/Bang/ 2014 Assessment year : 2009-10 The Deputy Director of Vs. Karnataka State Muslim Income Tax (E), Federation, Circle 17(1), No.22/1, Arabic College Post, Bangalore. Nagawara, Bangalore – 560 045. PAN : AAATK 5933C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (DR) Respondent by : Shri C.R. Nulvi, C.A. Date of hearing : 26.11.2014 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This appeal by t…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. M/S Indraprastha Cancer Society

ITA/240/2014HC Delhi18 Nov 2014
Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…ld that the claim for depreciation should be allowed as per principles relating to commercial accountancy, when computing business income. Reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Supreme Court in Escorts Limited versus Union of India, (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC), was dispelled and distinguished. In Escorts Limited (supra) the claim for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act was denied as the entire expenditure on the capital asset had been allowed under Section 35(2)(iv) of the Act while computing business profit and loss. Secondly, the Supreme Court was not concerned with the case of a charit…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

ITA/321/2013HC Delhi18 Mar 2014

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 260A

…on. 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 12 of 40 10. So far as the ground relating to depreciation is concerned, the CIT (Appeals) took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI, (1993) 199 ITR 43 and held that in arriving at the real income of the trust, deduction for depreciation cannot be allowed if the capital expenditure incurred in acquiring the asset has been allowed as application of income, since allowance of depreciation in such a case would amount to double deduction. On the basis of this judgment the CIT (Appeals) upheld t…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-I, New Delhi vs. M/S Aci Wireless Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/313/2013HC Delhi10 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge. [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 96; M.G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249; State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub and others, (1980) 3 SCC 57; Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 221. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL OF A-5 411. The incriminating evidence sought to be used with respect to A-5, Ajay Chautala is as follows: i) A-5 has been identified by PW-23 at the first meeting in Haryana Niwas wherein the s…

Commissioner of Income Tax: Delhi-V vs. Rites Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/295/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge. [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 96; M.G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249; State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub and others, (1980) 3 SCC 57; Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 221. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL OF A-5 411. The incriminating evidence sought to be used with respect to A-5, Ajay Chautala is as follows: i) A-5 has been identified by PW-23 at the first meeting in Haryana Niwas wherein the s…

Commissioner of Income Tax : Delhi -V vs. Rited Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/293/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge. [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 96; M.G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249; State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub and others, (1980) 3 SCC 57; Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 221. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL OF A-5 411. The incriminating evidence sought to be used with respect to A-5, Ajay Chautala is as follows: i) A-5 has been identified by PW-23 at the first meeting in Haryana Niwas wherein the s…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. R.L. Khera Charitable Trust

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/268/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge. [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 96; M.G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249; State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub and others, (1980) 3 SCC 57; Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 221. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL OF A-5 411. The incriminating evidence sought to be used with respect to A-5, Ajay Chautala is as follows: i) A-5 has been identified by PW-23 at the first meeting in Haryana Niwas wherein the s…

The Director of Income Tax Laxmi Nagar Delhi vs. Tci Foundation 10 Ram Bagh Azad Market Rohtak Road New Delhi

ITA/449/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

…for charitable purposes in the next year, there will be violation of section ll(l)(a) of the Act. We find that the hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly statedthis position, though not in the same context. In the decision in Escorts Ltd. V. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43 (SC) relied on by the Tribunal wherein the hon'ble Supreme Court states as follows (page 60): "The mere fact that a baseless claim was raised by some over enthusiastic assessees who sought a double allowance or that such claim may perhaps have been accepted by some authorities is not sufficient to attribute any ambiguity or doubt as to the true sc…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research

ITA/331/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

…for charitable purposes in the next year, there will be violation of section ll(l)(a) of the Act. We find that the hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly statedthis position, though not in the same context. In the decision in Escorts Ltd. V. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43 (SC) relied on by the Tribunal wherein the hon'ble Supreme Court states as follows (page 60): "The mere fact that a baseless claim was raised by some over enthusiastic assessees who sought a double allowance or that such claim may perhaps have been accepted by some authorities is not sufficient to attribute any ambiguity or doubt as to the true sc…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Indian Trade Promotion Organisation

ITA/7/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)

…le purposes in the next year, there will be violation of section 11(1)(a) of the Act. We find that the hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated this position, though not in the same context. In the decision in Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43 (SC) relied on by the Tribunal wherein the hon'ble Supreme Court states as follows (page 60) : . . . ‘‘The mere fact that a baseless claim was raised by some over enthusiastic assessees who sought a double allowance or that such claim may perhaps have been accepted by some authorities is not sufficient to attribute any ambi…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, New Delhi vs. Mira Exim Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/346/2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge. [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 96; M.G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249; State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub and others, (1980) 3 SCC 57; Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 221. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL OF A-5 411. The incriminating evidence sought to be used with respect to A-5, Ajay Chautala is as follows: i) A-5 has been identified by PW-23 at the first meeting in Haryana Niwas wherein the s…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd

ITTA/449/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

ITTA/147/2013HC Telangana28 Jun 2013
For Appellant: - Sri Yug Mohit Chaudhary assistedFor Respondent: - A.G.A., Sri Amit Mishra, Sri Gyan
Section 156(3)Section 201Section 302Section 363Section 364Section 366Section 376

…Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:199091-DB Reserved CAPITAL CASE No. - 147 of 2013 With CAPITAL REFERENCE No. 03 of 2013 Surendra Koli ……..Appellant Versus State through Central Bureau of Investigation …….Respondent Counsels for Appellant:- Sri Yug Mohit Chaudhary assisted by Ms. Payoshi Roy and Sri Siddhartha Sharma, Ms. Mary Punch (Sheeba Jose) and Sri Mohd. Kalim. Counsels for Respondent:- A.G.A., Sri Amit Mishra, Sri Gyan Prakash, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husai…

CIT VI vs. Verizon India Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/277/2013HC Delhi29 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge. [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 96; M.G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249; State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub and others, (1980) 3 SCC 57; Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 221. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL OF A-5 411. The incriminating evidence sought to be used with respect to A-5, Ajay Chautala is as follows: i) A-5 has been identified by PW-23 at the first meeting in Haryana Niwas wherein the s…

New Delhi Hotels Ltd vs. ACIT

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/238/2013HC Delhi17 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge. [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 96; M.G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249; State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub and others, (1980) 3 SCC 57; Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 221. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL OF A-5 411. The incriminating evidence sought to be used with respect to A-5, Ajay Chautala is as follows: i) A-5 has been identified by PW-23 at the first meeting in Haryana Niwas wherein the s…

CIT vs. Manju Bansal

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/205/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge. [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 96; M.G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249; State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub and others, (1980) 3 SCC 57; Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 221. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL OF A-5 411. The incriminating evidence sought to be used with respect to A-5, Ajay Chautala is as follows: i) A-5 has been identified by PW-23 at the first meeting in Haryana Niwas wherein the s…