Appeals Dismissed: Depreciation Disallowance & Deficit Carry Forward Rejected

The Appeals challenging the disallowance of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act and the claim for carry forward of deficit were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision, based on legal precedents, was upheld, rejecting the Revenue's arguments. The Appeals did not present substantial questions of law and were not entertained, leading to their dismissal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act
2. Claim for carry forward of deficit

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Disallowance of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act:
The Appeals challenge an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 8th June, 2016, for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The common question raised by the Revenue in both Appeals is whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of disallowing depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal's order dismissing the Revenue's appeal was based on the decision of the Court in CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personal. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v/s. Rajasthan & Gujarati Cheritable Foundation, Pune, which upheld the view of the earlier decision. The argument based on the decision in Escorts Ltd. v/s. UOI was deemed irrelevant as it did not address the specific issue of exemption under Section 11 of the Act, unlike the decision in Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Pune. Consequently, the question did not present a substantial question of law and was not entertained, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal.

Issue 2 - Claim for carry forward of deficit:
The second issue raised by the Revenue concerned the claim of the Assessee for carry forward of the deficit. This issue was also resolved against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT (Exemption) v/s. Subros Educational Society. As this question did not give rise to any substantial question of law, it was not entertained, resulting in the dismissal of the Appeal.

In conclusion, both Appeals were dismissed based on the above analysis of the issues raised by the Revenue, as the legal precedents and interpretations did not support their contentions.

---