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 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 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

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

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2692/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri A.K Garodiathe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S T.A Pai Management Institute, Post Box No.9, 80 Badagabettu, Manipal. . Respondent Pan – Aaatt2248R.

For Appellant: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Kamat, C.A

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 Societ…

ITO (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Sri Sri Radha Damodar Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3809/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito (E)-2(3) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 513, 5Th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. Pan:Aafts2570L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari (Dr) Assessee By : Sh. Nishant Thakkar With Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala- Advocates. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar with Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala-For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 253Section 254(1)Section 44A

…uble deduction claimed by the assessee. Recently the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) after considering various decisions while distinguishing the decision in Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) has held as under (page 20 & 21):- "In the present case, the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been suggested by learned counsel for the Revenue. The income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee is only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage o…

Income Tax Officer Exemptions Ward-1, Mangalore vs. M/S Shiruru Welfare Trust, Udupi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 2165/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazthe Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Mangaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Shiruru Welfare Trust, Udupi. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.R Ramesh, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Shambu Sharma, C.A

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…assets has been claimed by ITA No.2165/B/17 3 the assessee as application of income for charitable activities. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd and Anr Vs Union of India - 199 ITR 43 wherein it is held that double deduction cannot be presumed unless specifically provided for by law. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the fact that allowing the total cost of the asset as an application of income and allowing deprection on the value of such assets in the same year results in double deduction and it is not as per…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1634/PUN/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(1), Aurangabad …. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Mgm Campus, N-6, Cidco, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad Pan: Aaatm4256E अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Pramod Shingte

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35

…ich depreciation could be claimed and in any case, allowance of depreciation would amount to double deduction. In this regard, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). The assessee in reply, explained that the depreciation on assets of Trust was to be deducted while computing income of Trust. In this regard, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom) and also in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selecti…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1633/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bangalore vs. M/S. Rams Education Foundation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1464/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)

…assets, where cost of such assets has already been allowed as application of income in the year of acquisition/ purchase of asset. 4. 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 deducti…

M/S Rams Education Foundation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (Exemption), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1381/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)

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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5883/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…se of Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs CIT 76 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 Id CIT(A) erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble high Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking personnel selection without appreciating the fact that Department has not accepted the decision on merit, but due to smallness of tax effect appeal was not fil…

Kapil Rajkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3392/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3392/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kapil Rajkumar Jain Ito, Ward 1(3), बनाम/ 601, Paramount, H. N. Estate, Thane G.B. Road, Patlipada, Vs. Thane (W)-400 607 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afipj 4486 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kapil R. Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

For Appellant: Shri Kapil R. JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 48

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “डी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3392/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kapil Rajkumar Jain ITO, Ward 1(3), बनाम/ 601, Paramount, H. N. Estate, Thane G.B. Road, Patlipada, Vs. Thane (W)-400 607 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AFIPJ 4486 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Kapil R. Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.01.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.0…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S Vidyanidhi Education Trust, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. B. R Ramesh, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 11(1)

…iation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and distinguished by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid decisions. 21. The issue raised by the revenue in the ground of appeal is thus no longer res integra and has been decided by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli, 330 ITR 16 (P&H). The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Co…

Hgp Community Private Limited Successor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5081/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Hgp Community Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd.,514, Dalamal Word 3(1)(4), Room No Vs. Towers, 211, F P J 666, Aayakar Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai-400021 Pan No. Aaafa4103H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Chetan A. Karia, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Chetan A. Karia, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

…found it strange that the appellant has capitalized cost of asset and again claimed the same as deduction under the head ‘Income from house property’. This leads to double deduction HGP Community Pvt. Ltd. 4 has held in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). Following the above judgment, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the appellant submits that the assessee is a registered partnership firm. The main activities of the firm are construction and development of properties. During the year under consideration, the appellant had carried on and completed con…

Sri Sai Educational Trust, Chitamani vs. The Income Tax Officer(Exemption) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1654/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Chandrasekhar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 234

…and claim of deduction under section 11 of the Act. Since certain conditions were not fulfilled, the AO denied the deductions and the depreciation on vehicles and assets following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., Vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43). 4. Before the CIT(A), though the assessee has raised the claim, the deductions were claimed under section 10(23C)(IIIad) of the Act, but the CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance without verifying the facts whether the deduction was claimed under section 10(23C)(IIIad) of the Act or under section 11 of the Act. He summarily confirmed the disall…

DCIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. Lokhandwala Foundations, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1683/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dcit (E) 1(1), Vs. M/S.Lokhandwala Foundations R.No.506, 5Th Floor 48, Indranarayan Road Piramal Chambers Santacruz (West) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 054 Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aaatl0068K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32fSection 80G

…is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 1, Mumbai dated 26/12/2016 for A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. The following grounds have been taken by the Revenue:- 1. the decision of Escorts Ltd. Vs. UOl 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since section 11 of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for the objects 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 deduction…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Amc Medical Education Trust, Ahmedabad

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3089/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: --None--

Section 10(2)(xiv)Section 12ASection 32Section 35(2)(iv)Section 70(2)(xiv)Section 80G(5)

…or the purpose of objects of the trust. As per the AO this basically amounts to 100% deduction. Therefore, any further allowance by way of depreciation will amounting to double deduction in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd (199 ITR 43), wherein the Supreme Court was held that when deduction u/s.35(2)(iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research no depreciation was to be allowed u/s.32 on the same assets. The apex court further observed that double deduction is intended unless there is clear statutory indication to the contrary. "It is impossible to c…

DCIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Karamshi Jethabhai Somaiya Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5436/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negithe Dcit (Exemption)-1(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012 ...... Appellant Vs. Karamshi Jethabhai Somaiya Trust, Somaiya Bhavan, 45/47, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaatk0474C .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Respondent By : Ms.Aarati Vissanji

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Ms.Aarati Vissanji

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…rounds of appeal:- 1. "Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assesses on account of disallowing depreciation on fixed assets of Rs. 1,38,75,973/- in contravention of the decision of Escorts Ltd. Vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since section 11 of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for the objects 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 deduction…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Saifee Hospital Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-2010

ITA 3318/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Saifee Hospital Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), 15/17, Maharshi Karve Marg, 510, 5Th Floor, Charni Road Railway Station Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. (West), Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aabts7800D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.V. Lakhani (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT DR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143Section 32

…e of Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs CIT 76 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).” 5. We notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has decided both the issues in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by following the decision of the coordinate Bench passed in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2008-09, ITA No. 5686/Mum/2011 (supra). The issue pertaining to rejection of exemption u/s 10 (23C) (via) of the Act by following the ratio…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Sri. K.R. Kaviraj, Hospet

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

ITA 362/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT-II (D.R)

Section 10Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)

…by first showing the outlay for capital asset as application of income and thereafter claiming depreciation on the capital asset as well. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts & Another Vs. UOI & Others 199 ITR 43 (SC). The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the claim of depreciation along with application of money of capital expenditure amounts double deduction which is not envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT (Appeals) has also referred to the amended provisions of Section…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption0 Circle- 1, Mangalore vs. M/S Anjuman E Islams, Hubli

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1702/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Ajith, Additional CIT

Section 10(2)Section 11Section 15Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)Section 70

…assets, where cost of such assets has already been allowed as application of income in the year of acquisition/ purchase of asset. 4. 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 deducti…

DCIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. K J Somaiya Medical Trust, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6646/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Arati Vissanji

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…Somaiya Medical Trust “1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of disallowing depreciation on fixed assets of Rs. 69,43,629/- in contravention of the decision of Escorts Ltd. Vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since section 11 of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for the objects 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 deduction…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajnikant V. Chaniyari

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 32

…Ba Khin Memorial Trust “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 on fixed assets of Rs.80,55,519/- in contravention of the decision of Escorts Ltd. Vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since section 11 of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for the objects 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 deduction…