Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.03 seconds)Section 80G in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Escorts Limited And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 October, 1992
"In the present case, the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account
of depreciation as has been suggested by learned counsel for the Revenue. The
income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee is only claiming that
depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage
of funds which have to be applied for the purposes of the trust. There is no
double deduction claimed by the assessee as canvassed by the Revenue. The
judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. case [1993] 199 ITR 43
is distinguishable for the above reasons. It cannot be held that double benefit is
given in allowing claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of
section 11. The questions proposed have, thus, to be answered against the
Revenue and in favour of the assessee."
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cit vs Market Committee on 14 March, 2007
10. As regards the A.O.'s objection that the assessee is claiming double
deduction on account of depreciation on the same very assets, we are of the
view that there was no double deduction claimed by the assessee. Recently the
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Market Committee,
Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) after considering various decisions while
distinguishing the decision in Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) has
held as under (page 20 & 21):-
M/S J.K. Synthetics Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 December, 1996
There is
generation of huge profits year after year a part of which is diverted to the
3 ITA 5773/M/2011
related concern. According to the A.O. since the activities of the trust are being
carried on commercial lines not in conformity with the objects of the assessee
society, the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Therefore,
the assessee is required to be taxed as AOP without granting exemption u/s 11
of the Act. He further observed that without prejudice to the treatment of the
assessee as business concern as above, it is seen that the assessee has claimed
deficit of Rs. 86,06,051/- and depreciation on assets, cost of which has already
been claimed to be application towards the object of the trust in earlier years for
the purposes of availing exemption under the Act, the said claims of the
assessee are not allowable as section 11 of the Act provides for deduction of
expenditure incurred for the objects of the trust as application from such
income and does not specifically and expressly provide for double deduction on
account of expenditure out of exempt income and double deduction on account
of depreciation on the same very assets acquired from such capital expenditure
amounts to claiming a double deduction which in view of the ratio of judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India
(1993)199 ITR 43 and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Union of India (1992) 65 Taxman
420, cannot be allowed. He further observed that the assessee has given
donation to ISKCON amounting to Rs. 1,85,66,772/- and the same has been
debited to the Profit and Loss Account. Since the assessee has not submitted
any documentary evidences suggesting that ISKCON has a valid 80G certificate,
hence the A.O. also disallowed the deduction u/s 80G of the Act.
The Goa University Act, 1984
1