TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟ for short). Registration was applied for from the date of incorporation of the society. The application was, however, rejected by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi vide order passed on 22nd August, 2006 under Section 12AA(1)(b) of the Act. The registration was rejected not only for the past assessment years but also for the assessment year 2006-07 which is the year in question before us. 2. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal‟ for short) against the order refusing registration and the Tribunal vide its order dated 25th May, 2007 set aside the order of the refusal of registration and directed the DIT(E) to re-examine the assessee‟s claim. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter dated 26th November, 2008 that no specific expenses were incurred for earning the income, the Assessing Officer was not in a position to allow any deduction on account of the expenses. However, accepting the position that some expenditure would have necessarily been incurred for earning the income, the Assessing Officer estimated the same at Rs.1 lac per month and thus allowed an expenditure of Rs.12 lacs against the gross receipts of Rs.12,44,11,646/- and arrived at the net taxable income of Rs. 12,32,11,650/-. 6. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals) questioning the refusal of the Assessing Officer to allow exemption under Section 11 of the Act in respect of the income. In the alternative, it was claimed that the expenses of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principles. In support of the claim, reliance was placed by the assessee on the following authorities:- 1) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Gujarat) 2) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Raipur Pallottine Society (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.) 3) CIT vs. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne (1984) 146 ITR 28 (Kar.) 8. It was further pointed out that the claim of depreciation had been allowed by the Assessing Officer himself in the assessments for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and also for the assessment year 2007-08 for which year the assessment had been framed under Section 143(3). 9. The CIT(Appeals), on the basis of the order passed by the DIT(E) on 11t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allow the depreciation was based on several authorities including some orders of the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal and felt bound by those orders. Accordingly the decision of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed vide order dated 13th May, 2011. 11. The revenue is in appeal against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. We are not inclined to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law since none arises from the order of the Tribunal. There is no dispute that the assessee has been granted registration under Section 12AA vide order dated 11th September, 2009 and, therefore, it was entitled to exemption of its income under Section 11. The only question is whether the income of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t should be understood in its commercial sense. The circular is as under:- "Where the trust derives income from house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection, that the amounts so added back will become chargeable to tax u/s. 11(3) to the extent that they represent outgoings for purposes other than those of the trust. The amounts spent or applied for the purposes of the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e question as to whether its income should be computed on commercial principles in order to determine the amount of income available for application to charitable purposes. It was a case where the assessee was carrying on business and the statutory computation provisions of Chapter IV-D of the Act were applicable. In the present case, we are not concerned with the applicability of these provisions. We are concerned only with the concept of commercial income as understood from the accounting point of view. Even under normal commercial accounting principles, there is authority for the proposition that depreciation is a necessary charge in computing the net income. Secondly, the Supreme Court was concerned with the case where the assessee had ....