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

Rambagh Golf Club, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 442/JPR/2023[2012- 13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35Section 35(2)

…g only a notional expense it cannot hold to be any payment for the purpose of receipt and payment account. The Rambagh Golf Club vs. ITO Exemption ld. AO based on these reasons and relying on the decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43, the Supreme Court held that when deduction under section 35(2) (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation was to be allowed under section 32 on the same assets. There is a fundamental axiom that double deduction is not intended unless there is a clear statutory indication on the contrary. The Su…

Rambagh Golf Club, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 441/JPR/2023[2011- 12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35Section 35(2)

…g only a notional expense it cannot hold to be any payment for the purpose of receipt and payment account. The Rambagh Golf Club vs. ITO Exemption ld. AO based on these reasons and relying on the decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43, the Supreme Court held that when deduction under section 35(2) (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation was to be allowed under section 32 on the same assets. There is a fundamental axiom that double deduction is not intended unless there is a clear statutory indication on the contrary. The Su…

Rambagh Golf Club, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 440/JPR/2023[2006- 07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35Section 35(2)

…g only a notional expense it cannot hold to be any payment for the purpose of receipt and payment account. The Rambagh Golf Club vs. ITO Exemption ld. AO based on these reasons and relying on the decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43, the Supreme Court held that when deduction under section 35(2) (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation was to be allowed under section 32 on the same assets. There is a fundamental axiom that double deduction is not intended unless there is a clear statutory indication on the contrary. The Su…

M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. Dcitcorporate Circle1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 798/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…to cost of acquisition, then the assessee would be entitled to double deduction once under section 36(1)(iii) and the other under section 32 of Act, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. UOI[1993] 199 ITR 43. :-32-: ITA. Nos: 2757/Chny/2017, 1672/Chny/2019, 797 & 798/Chny/2020, IT(TP)A Nos: 21/Chny/2021& 40/Chny/2022 31.6 Similarly, when the shares are purchased by way of investment, and the dividend is received in respect of such shares, the interest paid on borrowed funds has been held to be allowable as deduction against dividend income. The Supr…

M/S Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 797/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…to cost of acquisition, then the assessee would be entitled to double deduction once under section 36(1)(iii) and the other under section 32 of Act, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. UOI[1993] 199 ITR 43. :-32-: ITA. Nos: 2757/Chny/2017, 1672/Chny/2019, 797 & 798/Chny/2020, IT(TP)A Nos: 21/Chny/2021& 40/Chny/2022 31.6 Similarly, when the shares are purchased by way of investment, and the dividend is received in respect of such shares, the interest paid on borrowed funds has been held to be allowable as deduction against dividend income. The Supr…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Aban Offshore Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1672/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…to cost of acquisition, then the assessee would be entitled to double deduction once under section 36(1)(iii) and the other under section 32 of Act, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. UOI[1993] 199 ITR 43. :-32-: ITA. Nos: 2757/Chny/2017, 1672/Chny/2019, 797 & 798/Chny/2020, IT(TP)A Nos: 21/Chny/2021& 40/Chny/2022 31.6 Similarly, when the shares are purchased by way of investment, and the dividend is received in respect of such shares, the interest paid on borrowed funds has been held to be allowable as deduction against dividend income. The Supr…

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2757/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…to cost of acquisition, then the assessee would be entitled to double deduction once under section 36(1)(iii) and the other under section 32 of Act, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. UOI[1993] 199 ITR 43. :-32-: ITA. Nos: 2757/Chny/2017, 1672/Chny/2019, 797 & 798/Chny/2020, IT(TP)A Nos: 21/Chny/2021& 40/Chny/2022 31.6 Similarly, when the shares are purchased by way of investment, and the dividend is received in respect of such shares, the interest paid on borrowed funds has been held to be allowable as deduction against dividend income. The Supr…

M/S. Ksrtc Passengers Accident Relief Fund Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 374/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese
Section 11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 373 & 374/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. KSRTC Passengers Accident Relief Fund Trust, The Income Tax KSRTC Central Officer Office, (Exemptions), Transport House, Ward – 1, K H Road, Bangalore. Vs. Shanthinagar, Bangalore – 560 027. PAN: AAATK6472A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Joseph Varghese, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 20-07-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28-08-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PIL…

M/S. Ksrtc Passengers Accident Relief Fund Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 373/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese
Section 11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 373 & 374/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. KSRTC Passengers Accident Relief Fund Trust, The Income Tax KSRTC Central Officer Office, (Exemptions), Transport House, Ward – 1, K H Road, Bangalore. Vs. Shanthinagar, Bangalore – 560 027. PAN: AAATK6472A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Joseph Varghese, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 20-07-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28-08-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PIL…

M/S the State Bank of Patiala, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 510/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 The State Bank Of India Asst. Cit Circle-Patiala, (Successor To State Bank Of Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Patiala), Patiala-147001 Dgm & Cfo, Sbi, Local Head Office – Chandigarh, 2Nd Floor, Sector 17A, Chandigarh- 160017. Pan No. Aaccs 0143 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved & Mr. Ninadpatade, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…Rules, 1962 and misinterpreting the Rule 6ABA of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and also against the ratio of judgment in the case of J.K also against the ratio of judgment in the case of J.K also against the ratio of judgment in the case of J.K Synthetics Ltd. v. UOI 199 ITR 43 (SC).?" Synthetics Ltd. v. UOI 199 ITR 43 (SC).?" 9. While dismissing the Revenue 9. While dismissing the Revenue‟s appeal and upholding the appeal and upholding the findings of the Tribunal, the Hon findings of the Tribunal, the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court, in the ‟ble Calcutta High Court, in the aforesaid decision, observed as under: aforesaid d…

The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

ITA 752/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 253

…t after has decided the issue in the favour of the department after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd (199 ITR 43). case of Escorts Ltd (199 ITR 43). 3. The Appellant prays that, to the extent of abo The Appellant prays that, to the extent of above grounds, ve grounds, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-7, Mumbai be set aside and that of…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India, New Delhi

ITA 5737/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 50C

…as the expenditure on fixed assets is already allowed. 6. This issue is no more resintegra as the impugned quarrel has been settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escort Limited 199 ITR 43 and Rajasthan and Gujarat Charitable Foundation 402 ITR 441. We find that while deleting the addition the CIT(A) at para-4 of his order has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court, therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No.1 is accordingly dismissed. 7. The quarrel in ground No.2 relates…

The State Bank of Patiala, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 538/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

…I.T. Act, 1961, for the same advances made for all previous years leading to multiple deductions in every assessment year by misinterpreting the Rule 6ABA of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and also against the ratio of judgment in the case of J.K Synthetics Ltd. v. UOI 199 ITR 43 (SC).?" 9. While dismissing the Revenue‟s appeal and upholding the findings of the Tribunal, the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court, in the aforesaid decision, observed as under: ―5. The assessee's appeal, however, was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's interpretation of the aforesaid statutory provisions would appear from the following passage:—…

The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patiala), Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

ITA 1259/CHANDI/2017[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

…I.T. Act, 1961, for the same advances made for all previous years leading to multiple deductions in every assessment year by misinterpreting the Rule 6ABA of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and also against the ratio of judgment in the case of J.K Synthetics Ltd. v. UOI 199 ITR 43 (SC).?" 9. While dismissing the Revenue‟s appeal and upholding the findings of the Tribunal, the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court, in the aforesaid decision, observed as under: ―5. The assessee's appeal, however, was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's interpretation of the aforesaid statutory provisions would appear from the following passage:—…

The Dy. CIT (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Taraben Vrujlal Mehta Charitable Foundation Trust, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1544/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…ction against the reopening of the assessment proceedings vide letter dated 11.01.2016 which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escort Limited vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that when deduction under Section 35(2)(iv) of the Act was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research no depreciation has to be allowed under Section 32 on the same asset. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs.55,32,155/-and assessed the income at Rs.(-) 4,34,17,907/-. 4. Being aggriev…

DCIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gharda Foundations, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2178/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak ShahFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Tiwari
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 6th Floor, MTNL Building, Cumball Hill, Dr. GD Deshmukh Marg, (Padder Road), Mumbai – 400026 ……………… Appellant M/s Gharda Foundation, Vs 48 Gharda House, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 [PAN: AAATG0260C] ……………… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri Avinash Tiwari For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Deepak Shah Date of conclusion of hearing : 10.05.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Rah…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Kolkata vs. Integrated Education & Research Centre for Engineering & Man

The appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/276/2017HC Calcutta28 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 28Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No. 620/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Erred In Law In Not Considering That Allowing Depreciation In Respect Of A Depreciable Asset For Which The Assessee

Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…OD-6 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/276/2017 IA NO. GA/2/2017 (Old No:GA/2531/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA Versus INTEGRATED EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Date : 28th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….for Appellant Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv. …for Respondent The Court :- This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the or…

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…urt in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 to deny depreciation on assets which have been claimed as application of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). It is submitted that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pi…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kedra, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…urt in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 to deny depreciation on assets which have been claimed as application of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). It is submitted that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pi…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…urt in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 to deny depreciation on assets which have been claimed as application of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). It is submitted that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pi…