Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)
Dcit (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs Mohd Haji Saboo Sidik Institution, ... on 16 April, 2018 cites

Cit vs Institute Of Banking Personnel ... on 9 July, 2003

" These are the petitions and appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against the orders passed by various High Courts granting benefit of depreciation on the assets acquired by the respondents- assessees. It is a matter of record that all the assessees are charitable institutions registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). For this reason, in the previous year to the year with which we are concerned and in which year the depreciation was claimed, the entire expenditure incurred for acquisition of capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount to giving double benefit to the assessee. Though it appears that in most of these cases, the CIT (Appeals) had affirmed the view, but the ITAT reversed the same and the High Courts have accepted the decision of the ITAT thereby dismissing the appeals of the Income Tax Department. From the judgments of the High Courts, it can be discerned that the High Courts have primarily followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)' [(2003) 131 Taxman 386 (Bombay)]. In the said 5 I.T.A. No.7019/Mum/2016 judgment, the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner:
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 544 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

C.I.T.-Iii,Pune vs Rajasthan And Gujarati Charitable ... on 13 December, 2017

The facts of the instant case before us are similar and ratio of aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III,Pune v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona(supra) shall be applicable and 7 I.T.A. No.7019/Mum/2016 the assessee will be entitled for depreciation on the capital assets which were already been claimed as an application of income . The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding this issue has taken note that there is an amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act, vide Finance (No. 2) Act 2014 , w.e.f. 01-4-2015 i.e. effective from assessment year 2015-16, which amendment in statute was held to be prospective in nature. The impugned assessment year before us is assessment year 2013-14 which is prior to assessment year 2015-16 and amendment by Finance(No.2) Act, 2014 shall not be applicable to the instant appeal and hence we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. The Revenue fails in this appeal . We order accordingly.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 381 - Full Document

Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) vs Framjee Cawasjee Institute on 9 July, 1992

4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The Appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Hence, Question No. 2 is covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above Judgment. Consequently, Question No. 2 is answered in the Affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department."
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 232 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 Next