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

DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mandke Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4108/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Cit (Exemptions)-2(1), Mandke Foundation बनाम/ Room No. 519, 5Th Floor, Rao Saheb Achutrao Patwardhan Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Marg, Four Bunglows, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aatm 4557 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Sanghavi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.03.2017, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. "Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law The Id.Cit(A) Erred In Aliening The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Disallowing Depreciation On Fixed Assets Of Rs.60,92,65,396/- In Contravention Of The Decision Of Escorts

For Appellant: Shri N. HemalathaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi
Section 11Section 32

…of the case and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in aliening the appeal of the assessee on account of disallowing depreciation on fixed assets of Rs.60,92,65,396/- in contravention of the decision of Escorts 2 Dy. CIT (Exemptions) vs. Mandke Foundation Ltd. Vs. UOI199 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. Santacruz Residents Association, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4103/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Cit (Exemptions)-2(1), The Santacruz Residents Room No. 519, 5Th Floor, Association बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bcj Hospital & Asha Parekh Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Research Centre, Corner Of S. V. Vs. Road, Tilak Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaats 8214 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri/Smt. N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.03.2017, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. "Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Disallowing Depreciation On Fixed Assets Of Rs.73,31,8077- In Contravention Of The Decision Of Escorts Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri/Smt. N. HemalathaFor Respondent: None
Section 11Section 32

…in law the ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of disallowing depreciation on fixed assets of Rs.73,31,8077- in contravention of the decision of Escorts Ltd. 2 Dy. CIT (Exemptions) vs. The Santacruz Residents Association Vs. UOI199 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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle-1, Mangalore vs. M/S Catholic Diocesan Society, Bidar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 214/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangalore. . Appellant Vs. M/S Catholic Diocesan Society, Opp: Ksrtc Bus Stand Vijaya Nagar Colony, Bidar. . Respondent Pan - Aaaaco515D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri Edmond D’Souza, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-10-2017 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz:

For Appellant: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Edmond D’souza, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B' BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangalore. . Appellant Vs. M/s Catholic Diocesan Society, Opp: KSRTC Bus Stand Vijaya Nagar Colony, Bidar. . Respondent PAN - AAAACO515D. Appellant by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT Respondent by : Shri Edmond D’souza, C.A Date of Hearing : 28-09-2017 Date of Pronouncement : 04-10-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Comm…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 884/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, 502, 2Nd Floor, 5Th ‘C’ Main, 5Th Cross, 2Nd Block, Hrbr Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aaatb6131D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshhi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-9-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 4-10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Padmameenakshhi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)

…No.884/B/16 5 of such assets has already been allowed as application of income in the year of acquisition/ purchase of asset. (ii). 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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (E) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S Green Wood High School, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 10(2)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 15Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Green Wood High School, No. 377, 3rd Block, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Sarjapur Road, Koramangala, Vs. Circle – 1, Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. PAN: AAATG 6125A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 28.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2017 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This is a revenue’s appeal directed against the order of…

ITO (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Mahavir Jain Charitakalyan Ratanashram, Mumbai

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1604/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito (E) 2(3) Vs. Mahavir Jain Charitakalyan R.No.513, Piramal Chamber Ratanashram, Lalbaug, Parel 2/34, Minerva Building Mumbai – 400 012 19, Madhavdas Pasta Road Dadar (C.R.) Mumbai – 400 019 Pan/Gir No. Aaats7929L Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 143(3)Section 28

…al expenditure as application of income u/s.11 of the Income-tax Act. Further, claiming of depreciation amounts to double deduction of tax. Hence, AO had disallowed the same relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. v/s. Union of India 199 ITR 43. Further, after relying on the above Supreme Court decision, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) 131 Taxmann 386 (Bom.) has held as under:- "In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not allow carry forward of the excess of expenditure to be set off against the surplus of the subseq…

Income-Tax Officer, Mangalore vs. M/S.City Hospital Charitable Trust, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2206/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. H. L. Sowmya Achar, Additional CIT
Section 11

…trust nor the amount spent on application was reduced to that extent in the computation of income. Page 2 of 5 3.1 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. 4. The amount of loan taken was neither treated as receipts of the trust nor the amount spent on application was reduced to that extent in the computation of income. 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing assessee's claim of as Capital Receipt on…

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. the New Cambridge Educational Trust, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Singh, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Suresh, CA
Section 28

…e order of the Assessing Officer as well as the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Lisse Medical Institutions Vs. CIT 348 ITR 344 as well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & Another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 (SC). At the outset, we note that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal nthe case of DCIT (Exemptions) Vs. M/s. Maharani Lakshmi Ammani College Trust (supra) has considered and decided this issue in paras 7 & 8 as under : “ 7. Ground No.2 is regarding disallowance of depreciation. 8. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative as well…

ADIT (E), New Delhi vs. Fortune Society for Development and Promotion of International Business, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…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. 7.16 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 Supreme Court has gone a step further in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519, wherein it…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…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. 7.16 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 Supreme Court has gone a step further in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519, wherein it…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…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. 7.16 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 Supreme Court has gone a step further in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519, wherein it…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

ITTA/480/2017HC Telangana01 Aug 2017
For Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy
Section 120BSection 25Section 27Section 302

…conspiracy. According to the learned Trial Court, this amounted to a discovery of the fact. This finding cannot be sustained. It was laid 111 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:2282-DB ) down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.P. Admn. v. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249: 1972 SCC (Cri) 88 that discovery of a witness does not amount to the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was observed: “14. In the Full Bench Judgment of Seven Judges in Sukhan v. Crown [ILR (1929) 10 Lah 283] which was approved by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya case, Shadi Lal,…

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 450/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)Section 48Section 92C

…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. 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 Supreme Court has gone a step further in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519, wherein it h…

Dy.Director of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Monark Education Trust, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3088/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 32

…ts in allowing depreciation on the assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as a deduction on account of application of income as this 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, the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi, 348 ITR 344 and decision of Delhi Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 9 High Court in the case of DIT(E) vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust in (2014) 43 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi). (II) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S G M Education Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue and C

ITA 890/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ B ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.890/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle 1, Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. M/s. G M Education Trust, No.98, Samrudhi, 3rd Main, 8th Cross, BHBCS, Chandra Layout, Bangalore-560 040. ….. Respondent. PAN AAATG 7892Q C.O. No.29/Bang/2017 (In I.T. A. No.890/Bang/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) (By Assessee) Assessee/C.O. By : Shri B.T. Shetty, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G. Kamaladhar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 05…

ACIT(E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Padmshree Dr D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2035/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri B.C.S.NaikFor Respondent: Shri Reepal G Traishawala
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 32

…ollowing grounds : “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. 10,75,86,879/- 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 2 ITA No.2035/Mum/2015, A.Y 2010-11 M/s Padamshree Dr.D.Y.Patil University the objects of the trust as application and does not specifically & expressly provide for double deduction on account of depreciation…

ITO (Exemprion)-1(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5141/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Alok JohnFor Respondent: Shri K.Gopal &
Section 11

…figures as under : “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.23,11,61,215/- 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 (Exemprion)-1(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5140/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Alok JohnFor Respondent: Shri K.Gopal &
Section 11

…figures as under : “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.23,11,61,215/- 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, Bangalore vs. M/S Chalasani Education Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 887/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G. Kamaladhar, D.RFor Respondent: Dr.N.Suresh, C.A
Section 11(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ B ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.887/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle 1, Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. M/s. Chalasani Education Trust, No.420, Chalasani Main Road, Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560 066. ….. Respondent. PAN AABTC 0124G Appellant By : Shri G. Kamaladhar, D.R. Respondent By : Dr.N.Suresh, C.A. Date of Hearing : 05.04.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2017. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by th…