Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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 :

        2019 (1) TMI 1451 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        ITAT Kolkata: Depreciation claim upheld for AY 2008-09, Section 11(6) not retrospective The ITAT Kolkata upheld the assessee's depreciation claim for AY 2008-09, ruling that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act does not have retrospective ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            ITAT Kolkata: Depreciation claim upheld for AY 2008-09, Section 11(6) not retrospective

                            The ITAT Kolkata upheld the assessee's depreciation claim for AY 2008-09, ruling that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act does not have retrospective effect. The decision aligned with the Apex Court's clarification in a similar case. The judgment emphasized the need to balance statutory provisions and judicial precedents in determining income applications for charitable trusts, confirming the validity of the depreciation claim and dismissing the appeal.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Whether the depreciation claimed by the assessee constitutes a double deduction.
                            2. Applicability of Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its retrospective effect.
                            3. Interpretation of commercial principles in the computation of income for charitable trusts.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Whether the depreciation claimed by the assessee constitutes a double deduction:

                            The primary issue revolves around the assessee's claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,52,14,568/- as an application of income. The CIT(A) reversed the assessment findings, treating this depreciation claim as a double deduction because the assessee had already claimed the cost of acquisition as an expenditure. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee [2014] 51 Taxmann.com 455 (Calcutta), which allowed depreciation to ensure that the corpus of the trust remains intact. However, the CIT(A) noted that the appellant did not maintain a separate reserve fund for depreciation, leading to a potential misuse of funds by the trustees. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing that allowing depreciation would result in no trail of funds in the balance sheet, thus facilitating potential revenue leakage and generation of black money.

                            2. Applicability of Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its retrospective effect:

                            The learned DR contended that the Assessing Officer rightly disallowed the depreciation claim, arguing that the corresponding cost of acquisition had already been claimed for section 11 exemption purposes, making it a case of double deduction. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC) clarified that section 11(6), introduced by the Finance Act, 2014, applies prospectively from AY 2015-16 and does not have retrospective effect. Since the case pertains to AY 2008-09, the provision of section 11(6) does not apply, and the assessee's depreciation claim is valid.

                            3. Interpretation of commercial principles in the computation of income for charitable trusts:

                            The assessee argued that the income of a charitable/religious trust should be understood in its commercial sense, which includes the deduction of depreciation on the trust's assets. The ITAT Chennai in The Music Academy Madras, Chennai vs Assessee held that depreciation is allowable while computing income under commercial principles, even for charitable institutions. However, the CIT(A) and the learned DR argued that Section 32 of the Act, which provides for depreciation, applies only to business assets and not to assets used for charitable purposes. The ITAT Chennai emphasized that the Income Tax Act does not provide for depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, and any conflict between commercial principles and statutory provisions should be resolved in favor of the statutory provisions.

                            Conclusion:

                            The ITAT Kolkata, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation, concluded that the assessee's depreciation claim is valid for AY 2008-09, as section 11(6) does not have retrospective effect. Thus, the CIT(A)'s findings accepting the assessee's depreciation claim were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions while also considering judicial precedents in interpreting the application of income for charitable trusts.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found