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>ITAT upholds CIT(A) decision allowing depreciation for charitable trust, dismissing Revenue's appeals.</h1> <h3>ITO (Exemption) Versus Sardar Public Charitable Trust</h3> ITO (Exemption) Versus Sardar Public Charitable Trust - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance of depreciation by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals).2. Alleged double deduction on assets for which cost has already been allowed as a deduction.3. Availability of depreciation deduction under Section 32 for a charitable trust.4. Whether the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) should have upheld the Assessing Officer's order.5. The Revenue's plea to set aside the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) order and restore the Assessing Officer's order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance of Depreciation:The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,37,852/- for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 and Rs. 8,41,331/- for AY 2009-10. The CIT(A) relied on various judgments, including those from the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad 'B' Bench, and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, which have consistently allowed depreciation for charitable trusts. The CIT(A) concluded that depreciation should be allowed even if the cost of the assets had been treated as an application of income.2. Alleged Double Deduction:The Revenue argued that allowing depreciation on assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as a deduction on account of application of income, would amount to double deduction. They cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43, and the Kerala High Court's decision in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT, 348 ITR 344. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT found that these judgments were distinguishable. The ITAT noted that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had distinguished the Escorts Ltd. case, and the Gujarat High Court's binding judgment in CIT vs. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust, 198 ITR 598, supported the allowance of depreciation.3. Availability of Depreciation Deduction under Section 32 for Charitable Trusts:The ITAT affirmed that depreciation is allowable for charitable trusts under Section 32, even if their income is not assessable under the head 'Profit and Gains from business and profession.' The ITAT cited multiple judgments, including those from the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which supported the view that depreciation should be allowed to preserve the corpus of the trust.4. Whether the CIT(A) Should Have Upheld the Assessing Officer's Order:The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) should have upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) order. However, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) had correctly followed judicial precedents and binding judgments from higher courts. The ITAT noted that the AO's reliance on the Escorts Ltd. case was misplaced, as the issue had been distinguished by other High Courts.5. Revenue's Plea to Set Aside the CIT(A) Order:The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The ITAT emphasized that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the binding judgment of the Gujarat High Court and other relevant judicial precedents. The ITAT concluded that the CIT(A) was right in allowing the depreciation and that this did not result in double deduction or revenue leakage.Conclusion:The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation for the charitable trust. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied judicial precedents and binding judgments, and there was no basis for the Revenue's claims of double deduction or the need to restore the AO's order.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found