Trust wins depreciation claim case following Supreme Court precedent on asset cost deductions

The Bombay HC ruled in favor of the assessee-trust regarding depreciation claims for assessment year 2011-12. Following the SC's authoritative pronouncement in Rajasthan Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, the court held that depreciation on asset costs allowed as expenditure does not constitute double deduction. The court relied on its prior decision in CIT v. Institute of Banking and affirmed that once depreciation is allowed, the assessee is entitled to carry forward such depreciation. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the assessee's appeal was allowed against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against order allowing depreciation claim.
2. Interpretation of law on depreciation for charitable institutions.
3. Application of law pre and post April 1, 2015.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant-Revenue challenged an ITAT order rejecting their appeal against the CIT's decision allowing the Respondent-Assessee's depreciation claim for the assessment year 2011-12. The Revenue raised questions regarding the allowance of depreciation, citing precedents like Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI and decisions from Delhi and Kerala High Courts. The ITAT's reliance on a co-ordinate Bench's decision was also contested by the Revenue.

2. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, which clarified the law on depreciation for charitable institutions pre-April 1, 2015. The Court highlighted the question raised in a previous case regarding the justification of allowing depreciation on assets whose cost was already treated as income application under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court also mentioned the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection.

3. The Supreme Court's decision upheld the High Courts' rulings in favor of the assessees, emphasizing that depreciation can be claimed even if the capital expenditure was treated as income application for charitable purposes. The Court affirmed that the depreciation claim is legitimate under general principles or Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The judgment also referred to a similar case decided by the Bombay High Court regarding the treatment of depreciation on depreciable assets for a Trust. The Court concluded that the depreciation claim is valid and not a double benefit to the assessee.

4. The High Court noted that most High Courts followed the principles established by the Bombay High Court, except for the High Court of Kerala. The legislative amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act, effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016, was discussed, clarifying the prospective nature of the amendment. The decision confirmed that once depreciation is allowed, the assessee can carry forward the depreciation. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the decisions of the High Courts in similar cases and dismissed the appeals. The parties agreed that the issues raised were already addressed by the Supreme Court's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---