Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Ito (E) 2-3, Mumbai vs Sadhu Vaswani Mission Bombay, Mumbai on 4 July, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"F" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President
and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member
ITA No.357 /Mum/2016
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
Income Tax Officer-(E)2-3 Sadhu Vaswani Mission Bombay
Room No. 513, 5th Floor 13/14, Geetanjali, Behind
Vs.
Piramal Chambers Radio Club, Colaba
Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400086
PAN - AACTS1706P
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by: Shri T.A. Khan
Respondent by: Shri Subramanian
Date of Hearing: 04.07.2017
Date of Pronouncement: 04.07.2017
ORDER
Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 03.11.2015 for A.Y. 2011-12.
2. The only issue involved in this appeal relates to the claim of depreciation by the assessee society under section 32 of the Income Tax Act.
3. The facts which we noted are that the assessee has claimed depreciation of `64,73,265/- in respect of the assets for which assessee has claimed capital expenditure as application while computing income under the Income Tax Act. The AO did not allow the depreciation in view of the fact that the assessee had already been allowed exemption under section 11 when these assets were purchased and allowing depreciation will tantamount to double deduction.
ITA No. 357/Mum/2016Sadhu Vaswani Mission Bombay
4. When the matter went before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the AO to allow deduction to the assessee for the said depreciation.
5. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the tax authorities below. This issue, in our opinion, is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking and Personnel Selection (2003) 264 ITR
110. Not only this, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Framjee Cawasji Institute (1993) 190 CTR 463 (Bom) has also taken similar view. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in the case of DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 81 DTR (Del) 195 has taken similar view. Recently the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, again in the case of DIT vs. Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal (2015) 58 taxmann.com 288, has on the same issue held as under:-
"As far as question No.4 is concerned, this Court has repeatedly held that there is nothing like double deduction. When the assessee has acquired an asset from the income of the trust and thereafter the amount that is claimed is the depreciation on the use of the assets, such depreciation claim does not mean double deduction. The deduction earlier claimed is towards application of funds of the trust for acquiring assets. The latter is depreciation and it is permissible deduction considering the use of the assets. This has been clarified repeatedly by this Court. If any reference is required then the case of CIT v. Institution of Banking (IBPS) (2003) 264 ITR 110/131 Taxman 386 (Bom) is enough."
6. No contrary decision was brought to our knowledge. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).
7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sandeep Gosain) (P.K. Bansal)
Judicial Member Vice President
Mumbai, Dated: 4th July, 2017
Page 2 of 4
ITA No. 357/Mum/2016
Sadhu Vaswani Mission Bombay
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A) -1, Mumbai
4. The CIT - Exemptions, Mumbai
5. The DR, "F" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
By Order
//True Copy//
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
n.p.
Page 3 of 4