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 ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nabros Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 788/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…

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 551/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

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…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), (Tpo), Baroda

ITA 2061/AHD/2012[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…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 1197/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The CIT-I, Baroda

ITA 1453/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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…

M/S. Indian Institute of Management & Engineering Society, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3199/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Senior DR
Section 11Section 12A

…067/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets while computing total amount utilized and applied towards charitable purposes by relying 10 ITA No.3199/Del./2015 upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited vs. UOI – 199 ITR 43. 19. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order contended that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Escorts Limited (supra) is not applicable having been distinguished by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as Director of Income-tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 73 DTR (Del.) 195. 20. Undisputedly, assessee b…

ITO (Exemption)-2(3) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Sayaji-U-Ba Khin Memorial Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6607/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rajnikant V. chaniyari, AR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 32

…of Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions Vs CIT 76 3 DTR (Ker) 372 has decided 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 in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation claim of the assessee by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, ignoring the fact that the Department has not accepted the said decision of the juris…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyapeetha Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2707 to 2709/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2012-13 to 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, M/s Mahatma Gandhi Vidyapeetha (Exemptions), Trust, Savige Malleswara Ghills, Circle-1, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Kumaraswamy Layout, Bengaluru-560 078. PAN : AAATM 2020 Q. APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO Nos.40 to 42/Bang/2018 (By Assessee) Assessment year : 2012-13 to 2014-15 M/s Mahatma Gandhi Vidyapeetha Trust, The Dy. Commissioner of Income- Savige Malleswara Ghills,…

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Society of Congregation of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai

ITA 5549/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Ruchi TamhankarFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arum Kumar
Section 11Section 12ASection 32

…has raised the following grounds: - "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 of Rs.1,72,32,765/- in contravention of the decision of Escort Ltd. Vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since Section 11 of the Income tax act provides for deduction of capital expenditure ITA. No.5549/M/2017 A.Y.2012-13 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 su…

Income Tax Officer (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Society of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai

ITA 5547/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Ruchi TamhankarFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arum Kumar
Section 11Section 12ASection 32

…ue has raised the following grounds: - "1. Whether on the facts of the case and inlaw the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of disallowing depreciation of Rs.31,80,465/- in contravention of the decision of Escort Ltd. Vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since Section 11 of the Income tax act provides for deduction of capital expenditure incurred on ITA. No.5547/M/2017 A.Y.2012-13 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 suc…

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shree Kanchi Mahaswami Chandrasekarendra Saraswati Peetarohana Shatabdi, Mumbai

ITA 5546/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudary Arum Kumar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 32

…ounds: - "Whether on the facts of the case and inlaw the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of disallowing depreciation of Rs.7,03,773/- in contravention of the decision of Escort ITA. No.5546/M/2017 A.Y.2013-14 Ltd. Vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since Section 11 of the Income tax act provides for deduction of 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…

Sanskriti Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2493/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

…ssee claimed depreciation on assets of Rs. 2,34,01,317/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2,22,52,237/- for AY 2012-13. 8. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case cited as Escorts Ltd. and Another reported in 199 ITR 43 disallowed the depreciation on the ground that when deduction is allowed in respect of capital expenditure no depreciation is allowed on the same assets. 9. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has set at rest the issue in controversy in favour of the assessee in case cited as CIT vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation reported in 3…

Sanskriti Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2492/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

…ssee claimed depreciation on assets of Rs. 2,34,01,317/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2,22,52,237/- for AY 2012-13. 8. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case cited as Escorts Ltd. and Another reported in 199 ITR 43 disallowed the depreciation on the ground that when deduction is allowed in respect of capital expenditure no depreciation is allowed on the same assets. 9. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has set at rest the issue in controversy in favour of the assessee in case cited as CIT vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation reported in 3…

Foundation for Indian Sporting Talent (Fist), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bagalore

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1711/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 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. 5. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Societ…

Foundation for Indian Sporting Talent (Fist), Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-17(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1710/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 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. 5. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Societ…

Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-17(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Foundation for Indian Sporting Talent (Ifst), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1666/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 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. 5. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Societ…

Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemtions), Circle-17(1), Bangaloe vs. M/S Foundation for Indian Sporting Talent (Fist), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1665/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 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. 5. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Societ…

The Dy..Director of Income Tax(Exemption), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Cricket Association, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

ITA 1273/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

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

…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. iii) 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. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013…

The Dy..Director of Income Tax(Exemption), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Cricket Association, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

ITA 1272/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

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

…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. iii) 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. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013…

The Dy..Director of Income Tax(Exemption), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Cricket Association, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

ITA 1270/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

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

…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. iii) 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. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013…