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>High Court Upholds Depreciation Deduction, Rejects Double Deduction</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal Versus Market Committee, Shahabad</h3> The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal Versus Market Committee, Shahabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Justification of allowing depreciation on capital assets when capital expenditure has already been allowed as 'application of income'.2. Justification of allowing depreciation in light of the Apex Court decision in Escorts India Limited.3. Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained payment to Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB).4. Deletion of addition made on account of interest accrued on advance made to Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB).5. Deletion of addition made on account of interest income accrued on advance made to HSEB, considering the communication from Haryana Government.6. Deletion of addition made on account of interest accrued on deposits with Market Committee, Pundri.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Justification of Allowing Depreciation on Capital AssetsThe appellant-revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision allowing depreciation on capital assets, arguing it amounted to double deduction since the capital expenditure was already allowed as 'application of income' for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, held that normal depreciation could be considered a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the assessee on general principles or under Section 11(i)(a) of the Act.Issue 2: Justification of Allowing Depreciation in Light of Escorts India Limited DecisionThe appellant-revenue contended that allowing depreciation contradicted the Supreme Court's decision in Escorts India Limited, which held that no double deduction is permissible without clear statutory indication. However, the High Court noted that the assessee was not claiming double deduction but was only reducing depreciation from income to determine the percentage of funds to be applied for charitable purposes. The Court referenced judgments from Madras, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat High Courts, which supported the view that depreciation should be deducted to arrive at the income available for application to charitable purposes. The Court concluded that the Escorts Ltd. decision was distinguishable and did not apply in this context.Issue 3: Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Unexplained Payment to HSAMBThe Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained payment to HSAMB, which the assessee claimed as application of income. The High Court noted that this issue was covered by its earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar vs. Market Committee, Narwana, where it was held that the assessee was required to pay a portion of its income to the Board, and the payment was a legitimate application of income.Issue 4: Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Interest Accrued on Advance Made to HSEBThe Tribunal found that the assessee was following a cash system of accounting and had not received any interest income during the year. Therefore, the interest accrued on advances to HSEB was not liable to be assessed. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that no income had been received in the year in question, and thus, no addition was warranted.Issue 5: Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Interest Income Accrued on Advance Made to HSEBThe Tribunal also addressed the appellant-revenue's contention based on a communication from the Haryana Government, which suggested that the interest on deposits would be considered after repayment of the principal. The Tribunal concluded that no interest had actually accrued to the assessee, as the payment of interest was not decided by the government. The High Court agreed with this conclusion, stating that no interest income had accrued to the assessee, and thus, no addition was warranted.Issue 6: Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Interest Accrued on Deposits with Market Committee, PundriThe Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for interest accrued on deposits with Market Committee, Pundri, based on the assessee's cash system of accounting. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the assessee had not received any interest income during the year, and therefore, it was not liable to be assessed.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeals, answering all the amended substantial questions of law against the revenue. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the assessee was not claiming double deduction and that no interest income had accrued during the year in question. The Court's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents from various High Courts, supporting the assessee's claims.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found