Skip to main content
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the
judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has
allowed the appeals of the department as well as the assessee for
statistical purposes.
Counsel for the appellant framed the following substantial
questions of law:-
In DBITA No. 337/2017 & 339/2017
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in
allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the
fact that assessees like charitable for religious
institutions are governed by almost the separate or
independent provisions of Section 11, 12, 12A, 12AA
& 13 and these provisions are independent code in
itself in Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and
claim of depreciation u/s 32 comes under Chapter IV
of the Act under the u/s 32 comes under Chapter IV
of the Act under the head 'D' - Profit and Gains of
Business or Profession and depreciation is allowed
when capital assets are used for the purpose of
business?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in
allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the
fact that in case of charitable or religious institutions,
(3 of 5)
[ ITA-337/2017]
the assessee is not eligible for any type of
depreciation as the entire expenditure for the
purchase of capital assets is allowed as a deduction
and the same is treated as application of income u/s
11(1) and claiming depreciation on the same capital
assets tantamount to double deduction and is not as
per law as these capital assets are not used for the
purpose of business or profession as provided u/s
32(1)?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in
holding that both depreciation and application of
income are to be considered separately to determine
the correct income without appreciating that the
same tantamounts to double deduction which is not
correct as per relevant provisions of the I. T. Act?
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in
dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue on the
issue of disallowance of depreciation placing reliance
on their own decision without appreciating the fact
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 IT Act, 1992] 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 deduction in the form of depreciation on
such capital assets?"
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in
holding that both depreciation and application of
income are to be considered separately to determine
the correct income without appreciating that the
same tantamounts to double deduction which is not
correct as per relevant provisions of the I. T. Act?
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in
dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue on the
issue of disallowance of depreciation placing reliance
on their own decision without appreciating the fact
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 IT Act, 1992] 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 deduction in the form of depreciation
on such capital assets?