2012 (9) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mon grounds of appeal and as the facts and issue involved are similar, he is arguing the appeals together. Hence, we are disposing of these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee has taken the following common grounds of appeal in both the assessment years under consideration: "1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on various assets of the Appellant. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that capital expenditure is to be treated as application of income of the trust as per Section 11 and any further allowance by way of depreciation or otherwise would amount t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oviding for normal depreciation on commercial principles and not with reference to Section 32. 3.1 The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in ClT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel, 264 ITR 110 and Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom) where it has been clearly held that while computing real income of the assessee on general principles or under Section 11 (1 )(a) of the Act, normal depreciation is to be considered a legitimate deduction regardless of whether the costs of the asset was allowed as application of income u/s.11 of the Act. 3.2 The Learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the ratio of the decision of the jurisdictional Madras High Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Escorts Ltd vs Union of India, 199 ITR 43(SC). 6. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. The A.R of the assessee filed copy of the order of the Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs Market Committee, Pipli, [2011] 330 ITR 16 (P&H) and also copy of the order of the P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs Tiny tots Education Society [2011] 330 ITR 21(P&H) and submitted that it has been held by the High Court that allowing depreciation to the assessee Trust would not amount to double deduction as held by the Assessing Officer. He also relied on the decision of the Chennai 'D' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT vs M/s Coimbatore Stock Exchange in I.T.A.Nos.1086 and 1087/Mds/2010 wherein vide ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....istinguishable for the above reasons. It cannot be held that double benefit is given in allowing claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11. The questions proposed have, thus, to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 10. Further, the Chennai 'D' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Coimbatore Stock Exchange(supra) has held as under:   "5. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. The matter was discussed in our recent judgement dated 5.7.2010 in ITA No.535 of 2009, the CIT,Karnal v. Market Committee,Pipli. After referring to judgments in CIT V. Seth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhawan Trust [1992] 198 ITR 598 (Guj.) and CIT v. Institute of Banking Personal Selection (IBPS) (....