Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Trust's Appeal Granted for Depreciation Deduction: Precedents Upheld</h1> <h3>Services Association of Seventh Day Adventists P. Ltd Versus The Income Tax Officer (OSD) Exemptions, Chennai</h3> Services Association of Seventh Day Adventists P. Ltd Versus The Income Tax Officer (OSD) Exemptions, Chennai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Denial of deduction for depreciation while computing income under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Deduction for Depreciation:Facts of the Case:The assessee, a trust, appealed against the CIT(A)-XII, Chennai's order dated 18.10.2011, which denied the deduction for depreciation on assets amounting to Rs. 57,09,195/- while computing income under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation on the grounds that the assessee had already claimed the full cost of additions to movable assets as an application of income towards the trust's charitable purposes. Allowing depreciation on the same assets would amount to a double deduction.CIT(A)'s Decision:The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that under Section 11, even capital expenditure amounts to an application of income of the trust. Allowing further depreciation would result in an extra or double deduction, which is not permitted under the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Escorts Ltd vs UOI, 199 ITR 43, where it was held that an assessee should not be allowed to claim two deductions on capital expenditure on scientific research.Assessee's Argument:The assessee's representative argued that the issue was no longer res integra, citing the Chennai 'B' Bench of the Tribunal's decision in M/s Tamilnadu Cricket Association vs The Dy. CIT(Exemptions), which allowed depreciation under similar facts. The representative also referenced the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society (330 ITR 21), which supported the claim for depreciation.Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal reviewed the orders and submissions. It noted that the question of whether depreciation can be claimed as an application of income under Section 11 had been resolved in favor of the assessee by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Tiny Tots Education Society. The Tribunal also referred to its own decision in Sri Mariamman Educational Health and Charitable Trust, which followed the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personal Selection (264 ITR 110). In these precedents, it was established that depreciation on assets, the cost of which had been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11, could still be claimed.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the issue was fully covered in favor of the assessee, with no contrary material or higher court orders presented by the Revenue. Therefore, it set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to allow the claim for depreciation of Rs. 57,09,195/-. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and no other grounds were argued or pressed during the hearing.Final Order:The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on Friday, the 11th of May, 2012, at Chennai.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found