2017 (3) TMI 1738 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal challenging tax tribunal's order dismissed for settled law on depreciation & deficit claim

DIT (Exemptions) Mumbai Versus M/s. Aditya Birla Foundation

The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order. The Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by ... Claim of depreciation to assessee trust - Held that:- Revenue very fairly states that the issue arising herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. This by the decision of this Court in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Mumbai v/s. M/s. G.D. Birla Medical Research and Educational Foundation [2016 (2) TMI 901 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] decided on 1st February, 2016. In view of the above submission, the question no.(i) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. Allowing the claim of the assessee for carry forward of the said deficit - Held that:- The issue arise herein stands concluded by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Institute of Banking [2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v/s. M/s. Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council [2011 (2) TMI 1511 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In view of the above submission, question no.(ii) as proposed also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. Issues:1. Challenge to order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding depreciation claim.2. Challenge to order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding carry forward of deficit claim.Analysis:1. The first substantial question of law raised by the Revenue was whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,75,52,814. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing the depreciation claim based on a decision of the High Court, ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling that double deduction cannot be presumed without specific legal provision. However, the Revenue's counsel conceded that a similar issue had been decided against them in a previous case. The Court noted that the issue was settled in favor of the respondent assessee by a prior decision of the High Court. Consequently, the Court held that this question did not present a substantial question of law and thus dismissed it.2. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue pertained to the allowance of the claim for carrying forward the deficit, despite the absence of an express provision in the Income Tax Act permitting such a claim. The Revenue's counsel acknowledged that similar issues had been addressed in previous judgments of the High Court. The Court observed that the matter had already been settled by previous decisions of the High Court. Consequently, the Court held that this question also did not give rise to any substantial question of law and thus dismissed it.Judgment:The High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court found that both substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were not valid as they had been previously settled by the High Court's decisions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.