Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Tamil Nadu Tennis Association, Chennai vs Dcit(E), Chennai on 18 January, 2018
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, 'बी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'B' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी एम. बालगणेश, लेखा सद य केसम$
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2558 & 2559/Mds/2016
&
C.O. Nos.180 & 181/Mds/2016
(in ITA Nos.2558 & 2559/Mds/2016)
नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13
M/s Tamil Nadu Tennis
The Deputy Commissioner of Association,
Income Tax (Exemptions), v. SDAT, Tennis Stadium,
Chennai Circle, Lake Area, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034.
PAN : AAAAT 0164 H
(अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (Respondent & Cross-objector)
अपीलाथ* क+ ओर से/Appellant by : Smt. C. Yamuna, JCIT
-.यथ* क+ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
सन
ु वाई क+ तार
ख/Date of Hearing : 17.01.2018
घोषणा क+ तार
ख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.01.2018
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, dated 30.03.2016 and pertain to assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee has also filed cross-objections against the 2 I.T.A. Nos.2558 & 2559/Mds/16 C.O. Nos.180 & 181/Mds/16 respective orders of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, we heard the appeals and the cross-objections together and disposing of the same by this common order.
2. The first issue arises for consideration is exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of income on sale of tickets, facility fee and sponsorship fee, etc.
3. Smt. C. Yamuna, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, in the assessee's own case, this Tribunal in I.T.A. No.1757 & 1758/Mds/2013 vide its order dated 28.11.2014, found that the income on sale of tickets, facility fee and sponsorship receipts, etc. are eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. According to the Ld. D.R., the Department has already filed an appeal and the matter is pending before the High Court. According to the Ld. D.R., when the object of the assessee was general public utility, the income derived by the assessee from sale of tickets, facility fee, sponsorship fee, etc. are in the nature of trade or income from business, therefore, it is hit by first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Since, admittedly, total receipts exceeded ₹25 lakhs, according 3 I.T.A. Nos.2558 & 2559/Mds/16 C.O. Nos.180 & 181/Mds/16 to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
4. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. This issue was examined elaborately by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-
11. This Tribunal found that the assessee is eligible for exemption in respect of receipts from sale of tickets, facility fee and sponsorship fees. Since the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal examined this issue elaborately in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that mere pendency of appeal before the High Court cannot be a reason to take a different view. Since the CIT(Appeals) has rightly followed the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
5. In the cross-objections, the assessee has raised the issue of depreciation.
4 I.T.A. Nos.2558 & 2559/Mds/16
C.O. Nos.180 & 181/Mds/16
6. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee and Smt. C. Yamuna, the Ld. Departmental Representative. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the ground that the cost of asset was already allowed as application of income when the asset was acquired. In fact, the CIT(Appeals) has placed his reliance on the order of this Tribunal. Now, the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan And Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona in Civil Appeal No.7186 of 2014, found that even though the cost of the asset was allowed as application of income in the year in which the asset was acquired, the income of the trust has to be computed commercially by allowing depreciation as provided under Section 32 of the Act. In view of this judgment of the Apex Court, we are unable to uphold the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow depreciation under Section 32 of the Act.
7. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. However, both the cross-objections of the assessee stand allowed.
5 I.T.A. Nos.2558 & 2559/Mds/16
C.O. Nos.180 & 181/Mds/16 Order pronounced on 18th January, 2018 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(एम. बालगणेश) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(M. Balaganesh) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
th
4दनांक/Dated, the 18 January, 2018.
Kri.
आदे श क+ - त5ल6प अ7े6षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant
2. -.यथ*/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु8त (अपील)/CIT(A)-17, Chennai-34
4. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai
5. 6वभागीय - त न ध/DR
6. गाड& फाईल/GF.