How many judgments cite Escorts Ltd. v. UOI?

267 judgments on BharatTax cite Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Escorts Ltd. v. UOI come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 11(1)(a), Section 12A, Section 12AA, Section 48, Section 10(23C)(iv).

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 11 Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A Section 12AA Section 48 Section 10(23C)(iv)Section 11(2)Section 14

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(v)application of income revenue expenditure section 36(1)section 36 commissioner (appeals)section 10 section 11 previous year section 143(2)transfer prescribed

Judgments citing Escorts Ltd. v. UOI

The DCIT, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Institute for Plasma Research Spcoety, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 113/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Aparna Agarwal, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kinjal Shah, A.R

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…r the assessee has been taken care of and ultimately while allowing the claim of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) observed as follows:- “4.3 Further, the A.O has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) while disallowing the depreciation of capital assets held by charitable trust. The aspect was also elaborated by Hon’ble ITAT “C” Bench, Ahmedabad in appeal No. 1322/Ahd/2011 in the case of Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration for Asst. Year: 2008-09. The Hon’ble ITAT vide para-4 has observed as under:- “Before us Ld. CIT-DR has su…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle- 1, Mangalore vs. M/S Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1668/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant M/S. Hubli Dharwad Urban Commissioner Of Development Authority, Income Tax Vs. Navanagar, (Exemptions), Hubbali. Circle – 1, Pan: Aaalh0053J Mangaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Gangadhar .J.M, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri Gangadhar .J.M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)

Section 10(2)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 251(1)(a)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…assets, where cost of such assets has already been allowed as application of income in the year of acquisition/ purchase of asset. (d) The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. & another Vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43), while dealing with the issue of allowance of expenditure on scientific research u/s 35(1)(iv) [corresponding to section 10(2) (xiv) of the I.T. Act, 1922] held that any expenditure of a capital nature (or incurred towards purchase of capital assets) on scientific research allowed as deduction u/s.35(1)(iv), cannot be allowed once again as deduct…

Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5938/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas

Section 2Section 255(4)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 45Section 47Section 50Section 55(2)(ab)

…the learned Accountant Member is contrary to the provisions of the Act and hence, not sustainable in law. 10 Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. 20. As regards applicability of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India, 199 ITR 43 (SC), it was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. (supra) has held that there is a fundamental unwritten axiom that no legislature could have at all intended a double deduction in regards to the same business outgoing; and if it is intended, it should be clearly expressed. The assessee submitted that on the facts of the present…

Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E) - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3698/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Saktijit Dey & Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year 2012-13 Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Acit (E)- 1(1), 60A, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai 400 012. Pan Aaatb0214D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Ms Samatha Mullamudi

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 32

…ication of income of trust in the year in which assets were acquired. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43, he held that once the amount of Rs. 8,14,49,109/- was allowed as exempt u/s 11 of the Act on account of application of income in the year in which the assets were acquired, the assessee would not be eligible for depreciation on such assets. While doing so, he observed that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Instit…

DCIT (E), Ghaziabad vs. M/S Lord Krishna Educational Trust, Ghaziabad

ITA 4837/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Vijay Kumar Chadha, Senior DR

Section 12ASection 80G

…the ld. CIT (A) is based upon the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court cited as Director of Income-tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 262 CTR 558 (Del.) wherein decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 6 ITA No.4837/Del./2016 Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 (SC) has been distinguished. The assessee’s claim of depreciation in the income and expenditure account is allowable and it cannot be held that the double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing income for the purposes of section 11 of the Act. 9. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of ITO (E) vs. S.D. Coll…

The DDIT (Exemp.), Ahmedabad vs. Adarsh Foundation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1858/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O. P Meena & Ms. Madhumita Royआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1858/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम Deputy Director Of Income Tax Adarsh Foundation, Vs. (Exemption), Ahmedabad C/O Sal Hospital & Medical Institution, Opp. Doordarshan Tower, Drive- In-Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Pan:Aaa Ta2 111 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 32

…nue that allowance of depreciation on the assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as a deduction on account of application of income, would amount to double deduction in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43. vii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “”Profit and Gains from business and profession’ of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. viii) On the facts and circumstances of…

Indian Medical Association, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, (Exemptions), Ward-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessees are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 14Section 32

…ncome of the trust has to be arrived at in the normal commercial manner without reference to the provisions of section 14 . Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Escorts Ltd vs Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held by the apex court that when deduction u/s 32 (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure as Scientific Research, no depreciation was to be allowed u/s 32 of the I. T act in the same asset. 4.3 In the case of Lissie Medical Institutions V/s. Commissioner of Income- tax, Kochi, 348 ITR 344, the hon'ble High Court of Kerala…

ACIT-(E), Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Educational and Cultural Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1514/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

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. ITA Nos.1514, 1515, 1730, 1731 & 1732/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 23 3. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka…

Bmtc, Bengaluru vs. Addl.D.I.T., Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.532/Bang/2014 and 779/Bang/2013 are

ITA 779/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 18Section 2(15)

…d 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. ITA Nos.779/Bang/2013, 532 & 599/Bang/2014 & 1536/Bang/2016 Page 12 of 17 The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Angoori Devi Educational & Curtural Society, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the ld AO is dismissed

ITA 4886/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(E), Vs. Smt. Angoori Devi Circle-2(1), Educational & Cultural New Delhi Society, 88A, Pocket-1, Mayor Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaata1505E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 70Section 80

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT(E), Vs. Smt. Angoori Devi Circle-2(1), Educational & Cultural New Delhi Society, 88A, Pocket-1, Mayor Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi PAN: AAATA1505E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S. N. Pandey, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Vijay Kumar Goel, CA Shri Manoj Kumar, CA Date of Hearing 14/05/2019 Date of pronouncement /07/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the Id Deputy Commissioner of Income tax ( exemption) , Circle 2 (1),…

DCIT (Exemptions) Chennai Circle, Chennai vs. The Council of Seventh Day Adventist Educational Institutions, Chennai

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

ITA 1014/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. G.N. Raghavendra Rao, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R.M. Narayanan, C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…Exemptions III, Chennai (hereinafter called “AO”) vide order dated 31.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act without allowing the depreciation on application of income, placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Escorts, 199 ITR 43. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld. 6. CIT(A), contending that depreciation should be allowed on commercial principles and excess application of income on earlier years should be allowed to be carried forward and set off against subsequent year income. Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Hi…

DCIT (Exemptions) Chennai Circle, Chennai vs. The Council of Seventh Day Adventist Educational Institutions, Chennai

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

ITA 1013/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. G.N. Raghavendra Rao, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R.M. Narayanan, C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

DCIT (Exemptions) Chennai Circle, Chennai vs. The Council of Seventh Day Adventist Educational Institutions, Chennai

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

ITA 1012/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. G.N. Raghavendra Rao, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R.M. Narayanan, C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

ITO (Exemption) -1 (3), Mumbai vs. Harvard Business School (India) Research Centre, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3099/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Year:-2012-13 Ito(Exemption)-1(3), M/S Harvard Business School Room No.511, 5Th Floor, (India) Research Centre, बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, 5Th Floor, B-Wing, Mahindra Vs. Mumbai-400012 Tower, Dr. G M Bhosle Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaath5643L

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…the claim of depreciation relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Escorts Ltd. V/s. 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? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to allow to carry forward of deficit of earlier…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. T.A. Pai Management Institute, Mangaluru

In the result, Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 2688/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2688/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. T. A. Pai Management Institute, Income-Tax (Exemptions), Post Box No.9, Circle–1, 80 Badagabettu, Manipal, Mangalore. Pan : Aaatt 2248 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri. M. Sridhar Kamath, Ca Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Sridhar Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 10Section 10(2)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…cost of such assets has already been allowed as application of income in the year of acquisition/ purchase of asset. Page 3 of 12 The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 4. the case of Escorts Ltd. & another Vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43), while dealing with the issue of allowance of expenditure on scientific research u/s 35(1)(iv) [corresponding to section 10(2) (xiv) of the I.T. Act, 1922] held that any expenditure of a capital nature (or incurred towards purchase of capital assets) on scientific research allowed as deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) cannot be allowed once again as deducti…

Seth Anandram Jaipuria Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1790/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi and Shri Satyajit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…a 14] • There are divergent views expressed by Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344/24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.) wherein it has placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgment in Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 249. The judgment in Escorts Ltd. (supra) was in respect of different provision while scheme of Section 11 is/was different till 1-4-2015. The view taken by Kerala High Court could not be accepted. 10. Accordingly, respectfully following the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11.…

Seth Anandram Jaipuria Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 251/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi and Shri Satyajit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Seth Anandram Jaipuria Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 250/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi and Shri Satyajit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 2(15)

…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. 14. 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. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 799/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R

Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…ncomes which are deductible under any other provision have to be excluded from the profits of the business while computing deduction u/s 80HHC. (d) The Id. CIT(A) ignored the fundamental rule of interpretation laid down in Escorts India Ltd. vs Union of India 199 ITR 43 (SC) that no Legislature could have intended a double deduction in regard to the same income unless it is expressly provided in the statute and section 80HHC(4B) specifically prohibits such deduction. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal The order of the CIT…