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>Charitable trust can carry forward surplus funds for set-off & allow depreciation on assets. No substantial questions of law.</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) And Another Versus Agastya International Foundation</h3> Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) And Another Versus Agastya International Foundation - [2019] 417 ITR 539 (Kar) Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of the assessee to carry forward excess/surplus funds for set-off as application of income against the income of subsequent years.2. Allowability of depreciation in the hands of religious and charitable trusts.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Carry Forward Excess/Surplus Funds:The primary issue is whether the assessee, a charitable trust, is entitled to carry forward excess or surplus funds to set off against the income of subsequent years. The Revenue questioned the Tribunal's decision, which allowed such carry forward based on earlier cases, even though there is no specific provision for such set-off in sections 11, 12, and 14 of the Income-tax Act, and sections 70 to 79 are not applicable to trusts.The court referenced the judgment in CIT (Exemptions) v. Ohio University Christ College [2018] 408 ITR 352 (Karn), which upheld the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal had allowed the amortization of earlier years' expenses brought forward and set off in the current year, relying on the decision in CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne [1984] 146 ITR 28 (Karn) and CBDT Circular No. 5-P(LXX)-6 of 1968. The court affirmed that the income of a trust should be computed on commercial principles, allowing the set-off of previous years' expenses against current income.2. Allowability of Depreciation:The second issue concerns the allowability of depreciation on assets whose cost has been fully allowed as application of income in past years. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC), which affirmed the Bombay High Court's view in CIT v. Institute of Banking [2003] 264 ITR 110 (Bom). The court held that normal depreciation is a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the assessee, even if the assets are not business assets. Depreciation should be allowed as it represents a decrease in the value of property through wear and tear, and it is necessary to preserve the corpus of the trust.The court reiterated that the income of a charitable trust should be computed under section 11 on commercial principles after providing for normal depreciation. The court also referenced the decision in CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne, which supported the allowance of depreciation as a deduction for charitable trusts.Conclusion:The court concluded that both issues raised by the Revenue do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The principles established in earlier judgments, which allow the carry-forward of surplus funds and the deduction of depreciation, were affirmed. The appeal filed by the Revenue was disposed of in terms of these judgments, with no costs awarded. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the respondent-assessee forthwith.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
