TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the assessment year 2006-07, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs.92,98,533/- was justified to have been contributed to HSAM Board under statutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 is allowable without appreciating that no evidence could be produced by the assessee to prove that such expenditure was actually incurred and whether such contribution can be treated to fall within the ambit of application of income for charitable purposes as defined in section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act?" 2. Whether on the facts and in the ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferring double benefit. This view was reversed by the CIT(A). It was held that for computation of income, depreciation had to be allowed. As regards payments made to the Marketing Board, it was held that the same were as per statutory requirement of the Statute in question. Reference was also made to judgment of this Court in Haryana Dal &General Mills v. State AIR 1986 (P&H) 1 as to Scheme of the said Statute. The appeal of the assessee was finally allowed to the extent of proof of utilization of funds. Relevant observations made by CIT(A) are:- "5.2 The issue involved and the submissions made by the appellant have been considered. (a) The case law referred to by the appellant is not applicable in its case keeping in vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... version is correct and the ground of appeal is dismissed." 3. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A). 4. We have heard leaned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that depreciation could not be allowed when income itself was exempt as it will confer double benefit which is not permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others [1993] 199 ITR 43. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the Tribunal rightly decided the issues in favour of the assessee. He relied on the judgments in CIT v. Seth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhawan Trust [1992] 198 ITR 598 (Guj), CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charitie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for charitable purposes. The authorities will have to find out as to whether they are really charitable purposes or not. Subject to such examination, the application of the income for charitable purposes will have to be excluded and it is only the balance that would require examination for finding out whether the assessee has complied with the rule of accumulation to the extent of Rs.10,000 or 25 per cent of the income, whichever is higher." xx xx xx xx xx "In fact wherever the statute contemplated the income being computed in the manner set out in the provisions of the Act, appropriate words are used. For instance, in s.80E, which was considered by the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [....