TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision on Tax Appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09</h1> <h3>The Director of Income Tax-Exemption, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai Versus Society for Applied Microwave Electronic Engineering & Research IIT Campus Hill Side</h3> The Director of Income Tax-Exemption, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai Versus Society for Applied Microwave Electronic Engineering & Research IIT Campus Hill Side ... Issues:1. Appeal challenging order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09.2. Questions of law regarding depreciation claim and carry forward of deficit on excess expenditure.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order regarding the depreciation claim of Rs. 7,60,79,804. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision based on a previous court ruling, ignoring the Supreme Court judgment in Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court had held that double deduction cannot be presumed unless specifically provided by law in addition to normal deduction. However, the High Court noted that the issue was already settled in favor of the respondent in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Services. The Tribunal's decision was based on this precedent, and as such, no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal.2. The second question of law involved the carry forward of deficit on account of excess expenditure. The appellant contended that allowing the carry forward would result in granting double benefits to the assessee, which is legally impermissible. The High Court observed that the issue had already been conclusively decided in favor of the respondent based on the precedent set by the court in a previous case. The Tribunal's decision to allow the carry forward of deficit was in line with this precedent. Consequently, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration on this issue as well. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 