2012 (9) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., he was arguing the same together. 3. The CIT/DR submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 33,34,360/- in assessment year 2005-06 and the claim of depreciation of Rs. 33,34,360/- in assessment year 2006-07 since the expenditure incurred on acquisition of capital asset has already been allowed in full as application of income and therefore, further allowance of depreciation on the very same capital asset amounts to grant of double deduction of the same expenditure. 4. He submitted that the assessee is an AOP and registered as Charitable Trust u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and had filed its returns of income for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee and hence, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation claimed by the assessee. 6. The assessee-trust has filed an adjournment application on the ground that the counsel was out of country. The Bench was of the view that appeal can be decided in the absence of the respondent assessee and therefore, the adjournment application was rejected and the appeal was heard ex-parte the respondent-assessee and disposed of after considering the submissions of the CIT/DR. 7. After considering the submissions of the ld. DR, we find that in the instant case, the assessee is an AOP Trust registered u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 33,34,360/- in each of the assessment years 2005-06 an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n where depreciation was claimed by a Charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of Charitable objects. Even in the case Shri Mariamman Educational and Charitable Trust, Trichy Vs ACIT Trichy the Honble ITAT, 'D' Bench Chennai vide its order dated 021.02.2011 had clearly stated that the appellant is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been claimed by the Assessing Officer in the present case. The income of the appellant being exempt, the appellant is only claiming that the depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purpose of the Trust. There is no double deduction claimed by the appellant as sta....