Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT

348 ITR 344High Court2012#596 most cited

What is Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT authority for?

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lissie Medical Institutions v CIT · Section 11 Income Tax Act · depreciation charitable trust · charitable institution depreciation · Section 11(6) amendment · carry forward depreciation · accumulation of income · application of income · Kerala High Court depreciation

Also reported as

24 Taxmann.com 9209 Taxmann 19

Sections most often in play

Section 11 to 13 of the Income Tax ActSection 11(6) of the Income Tax ActSection 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the ActSection 28 of the Income Tax ActSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 17
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 11(6)section 10(23c)(iv)accumulation of incomesection 11(1)(a)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)section 251(2)section 10(23c)section 2(15)application of incomesection 32section 28

Judgments citing Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT

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)

…already been recovered by way of exemption as application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 5. On appeal by the Asses…

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)

…lready been recovered by way of exemption as application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 13. On appeal by the A…

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

…(1993) 199 ITR 43 and decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Charanjiv Charitable Trust (March 2014). He also relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in case of Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. Commission of Income Tax (feb 2012) [2012] 348 ITR 344 (Ker). Accordingly, he disallowed depreciation on such assets of Rs. 49342529/-. The Id AO further found that during the year, assessee has claimed carry forward of excess application of Rs. 4002356/-. The Id AR when questioned, furnished the details of carry forward of excess of income and supported it with decision of Gujarat High Court in case…

The Dy. CIT., Gnr Circle, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, Gandhinagar

In the result, this ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 91/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri H.P. Singh, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma & Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.Rs
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…in law and on facts in upholding the contention of the AO that since addition of assets was claimed as deduction u/s. 11 of the Act as application of income, no depreciation can be allowed thereon in view of the decision in case of Lissie Medical Institutions 348 ITR 344 (Ker).” 17. The identical issues on similar facts have been decided in favour of the assessee vide ITA No. 2991/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year 2009-10 as above in this order, therefore, following the above referred findings the appeal of the assessee on grounds of appeal 1 to 4 are allowed. ITA No. 330/Ahd/2014 filed by revenue 18. The revenue is has…

Gujarat Maritime Board, Gandhinagar vs. The Jt.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, this ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2991/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri H.P. Singh, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma & Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.Rs
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…in law and on facts in upholding the contention of the AO that since addition of assets was claimed as deduction u/s. 11 of the Act as application of income, no depreciation can be allowed thereon in view of the decision in case of Lissie Medical Institutions 348 ITR 344 (Ker).” 17. The identical issues on similar facts have been decided in favour of the assessee vide ITA No. 2991/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year 2009-10 as above in this order, therefore, following the above referred findings the appeal of the assessee on grounds of appeal 1 to 4 are allowed. ITA No. 330/Ahd/2014 filed by revenue 18. The revenue is has…

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)

…ct in allowing depreciation which amounts to double deduction when already full expenditure has been allowed in earlier years. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon'ble Kerala High 3. Court in the case of Lissie Medical Intuitions Vs. CIT (348 ITR 344) has held that depreciation cannot be allowed on assets, where 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…

ITO(Exemptions), Ahmedabad vs. Chamunda Foundation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 829/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR &
Section 12ASection 2(15)

…same. 3. It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. ITA Nos.1071 & 1072/Ahd/2013, CO No.82/Ahd/15 ITA No.829/Ahd/15 (By Revenue) &CO 83/Ahd/15 Chamunda Foundation vs. CIT/ACIT Asst.Years -2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(…

Chamunda Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT, Gandhinagar

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1071/AHD/2013[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR &
Section 12ASection 2(15)

…same. 3. It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. ITA Nos.1071 & 1072/Ahd/2013, CO No.82/Ahd/15 ITA No.829/Ahd/15 (By Revenue) &CO 83/Ahd/15 Chamunda Foundation vs. CIT/ACIT Asst.Years -2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(…

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)

…[2014] 367 ITR 466/49 taxmann.com 249/227 Taxman 121 (SC) Court has held that the aforesaid amendment is prospective and operative from 1-4-2015. [Para 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. A…

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)

…[2014] 367 ITR 466/49 taxmann.com 249/227 Taxman 121 (SC) Court has held that the aforesaid amendment is prospective and operative from 1-4-2015. [Para 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. A…

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)

…[2014] 367 ITR 466/49 taxmann.com 249/227 Taxman 121 (SC) Court has held that the aforesaid amendment is prospective and operative from 1-4-2015. [Para 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. A…

DCIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Lajpat Rai Educational Society, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1928/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 11

…ncerned, learned Assessing Officer had disallowed the depreciation as application of income by following the decisions in the case of Escorts Ltd (supra) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie medical institutions vs. CIT 348 ITR 344 (Kerala). 6. Ld. CIT(A), on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd (supra), the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of LissieMedical Institutes (supra) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ChiranjivCharitabl…

Lajpat Rai Educational Society, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1826/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 11

…ncerned, learned Assessing Officer had disallowed the depreciation as application of income by following the decisions in the case of Escorts Ltd (supra) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie medical institutions vs. CIT 348 ITR 344 (Kerala). 6. Ld. CIT(A), on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd (supra), the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of LissieMedical Institutes (supra) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ChiranjivCharitabl…

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)

…already been recovered by way of exemption as application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 17. We have heard the sub…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Bholaram Education Society, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3041/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alog Saiyed, AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…of appeal is allowed and AO is directed to allow amount of investment in the fixed assets as part of application of income as per sec. 11(1)(a).” 13. Heard both the sides. Learned Departmental Representative quotes case law Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT 348 ITR 344 (Kerla) to contend that the CIT(A) had rightly made the impugned disallowance. He however fails to dispute that the same goes contrary to hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in case of Satyavardhan Patel Hindu Dharamshala Trust (supra). We therefore express our respectful agreement with hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision to aff…

ITO (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shree Manav Seva Sangh, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5551/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanincome Tax Officer (E)-2(3), M/S Shree Manav Seva Sangh Room No.513, 5Th Floor, 255/257, Sion Main Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Soin (West), Mumbai 400022 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400022 Pan:Aaats 1440Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 15/Mum/2019 In Ita No. 5551/Mum/20178 (A Y 2012-13) M/S Shree Manav Seva Sangh Income Tax Officer (E)-2(3), 255/257, Sion Main Road, Soin Room No.513, 5Th Floor, Vs. (West), Mumbai 400022 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Pan:Aaats 1440Q Lower Parel, Mumbai-400022 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Dinesh Shah & Shreya Doshi (Ar’S) Revenue By : Sh. Satish Chandra Rajora (Sr-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Shah & Shreya Doshi (AR’s)For Respondent: Sh. Satish Chandra Rajora (Sr-DR)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala ITA No. 5551/M/2017& CO No. 15/M/2019 Shree Manav Seva Sangh which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and rightly so, that t…

Income Tax Officer (E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Mahavira Jain Vidyalaya, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5550/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanincome Tax Officer (E)-2(3), M/S Shri Mahavira Jain Room No.513, 5Th Floor, Vidyalaya, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 99/101, Shri Kvo Jain, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400022 Mahajanwadi, Keshavji Naik Road, Chinch Bunder, Sandhurst Road, Mumbai 400009 Pan:Aaats2075B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. K.F. Doshi-Ca (Ar) Revenue By : Sh. Satish Chandra Rajora (Sr-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019

For Appellant: Sh. K.F. Doshi-CA (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Satish Chandra Rajora (Sr-DR)
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…hat most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala 6 Shri Mahavir Jain Vidyalya which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and rightly so, that t…

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions-(4), Hyderabad vs. Sreethaja Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1371/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S. Sreethaja (Exemptions)-4, Educational Society, Hyderabad. 17-1-388, 1St Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. Pan- Aacas8178A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt., Komali Krishna, Assessee By : Shri A.V. Raghuram

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt., Komali Krishna
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)

…) allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the order of this Tribunal in the case of Kamineni Educational Society (supra), the department relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 (Kerala). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III, Pune Vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona and others in Civil Appeal No. 7186 of 2014 dated 30.12.2017 has considered the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court (supra) also decided the issue in favoure of the assessee and against the Revenue. Since the case is squarely…

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,…

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)

…already been recovered by way of exemption as application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was ITA Nos.1665 & 1666 and 1710 & 1711/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 16 allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished…