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>Charitable institution wins appeal for depreciation disallowance, Tribunal emphasizes adherence to ITAT orders</h1> <h3>AP. Olympic Association Versus ADIT (Exemption) -1 Hyderabad</h3> AP. Olympic Association Versus ADIT (Exemption) -1 Hyderabad - [2014] 30 ITR (Trib) 314 (ITAT [Hyd]) Issues Involved:1. Claim of depreciation disallowed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) and treated as income.2. Re-assessment proceedings and their validity.3. Allowability of depreciation under section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Claim of Depreciation Disallowed by the A.O. and Treated as Income:The primary issue in this appeal is the disallowance of a depreciation claim amounting to Rs. 7,29,036/- by the A.O. The A.O. reasoned that since the assessee's assets had already been allowed as an application of income, claiming depreciation would amount to a double deduction. The assessee, a society registered under section 12AA of the Act, contended that this was not a double claim and relied on earlier ITAT decisions in its favor for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2007-08. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, referencing the ITAT's decision in ACIT vs. Sri Venkata Sai Educational Society, which held that depreciation under section 32(1) is not allowable if the entire cost of the asset has been allowed as an application of income under section 11(1).The Tribunal examined the issue and noted that the income of a charitable institution should be computed under ordinary principles of commercial accounting, and depreciation should be allowed on depreciable assets held by a charitable institution to arrive at the income required to be applied for charitable purposes. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the Supreme Court decision in Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India, which dealt with the inadmissibility of depreciation when the entire cost of the asset was claimed as a deduction for scientific research.The Tribunal also considered various High Court decisions, including CIT vs. Manav Mangal Society and CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society, which supported the claim of depreciation for charitable institutions. The Tribunal concluded that the amount of depreciation debited to the account of a charitable institution has to be allowed to determine the income available for application to charitable purposes.2. Re-assessment Proceedings and Their Validity:Grounds No. 2 and 3, which pertained to the re-assessment proceedings, were not argued by the assessee and were thus treated as not pressed and dismissed.3. Allowability of Depreciation under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The Tribunal reviewed various judicial precedents and found a consensus that depreciation should be allowed for charitable institutions even if the cost of the asset has been treated as an application of income. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission had analyzed the issue comprehensively and held that depreciation is allowable while computing the income of a charitable institution.The Tribunal also highlighted that the A.O. failed to examine whether the assets on which depreciation was claimed had been exempted in earlier years. The Tribunal criticized the A.O. for not following the provisions of the Act properly and for unnecessarily raising demands that could harass charitable institutions.The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) erred in not following the binding order of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for earlier years. Since the Revenue had accepted the ITAT's order in those years, the CIT(A) should have adhered to the ITAT's decisions.Conclusion:The Tribunal reversed the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A), allowing the claim of depreciation to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was thus considered allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 07.02.2014.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found