TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts to double deduction. On appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the AO. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 1853/Mds/2011 dated 11-05-2012. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR fairly accepted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee in its own case. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Tribunal in the assessee's own case in ITA No. 1853/Mds/2011 dated 11-05-2012 for the assessment year 2006-07 followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tamilnadu Cricket Association v. The Dy. CIT (Exemptions) in ITA No. 1851/Mds/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08 dated 10-04- 2012 and the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is extracted as under : "5.The A.R of the assessee submitted that the issue was no longer res integra as Chennai 'B 'Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tamilnadu Cricket Association vs The Dy. CIT(Exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctive years are given as under: (a) The return of income filed for (i) Assessment Year 2004-05 declares NIL income and gross receipts of Rs..18,95,45,440/- in which the claim of depreciation made at Rs..2,72,85,356/- which was completed as "No Demand" while disallowing the depreciation claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has stated that when the assessee had claimed the cost of addition to assets as application of funds, claim of depreciation on the same assets could not be allowed. (b) The return of income filed for (i) Assessment Year 2005-06 declares NIL income and gross receipts of Rs.. 22,17,53,309/- in which the claim of depreciation made at Rs..2,82,17,782/- which was completed as "No Demand" while disallowing the depreciation claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has stated that when the assessee had claimed the cost of addition to assets as application of funds, claim of depreciation on the same assets could not be allowed. (c) The return of income filed for (i) Assessment Year 2006-07 declares NIL income and gross receipts of Rs..21,71,47,737/- in which the claim of depreciation made at Rs.. 2,64,72,392/- which was completed as "No Demand" while ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the view that when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as "application of income" of the trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets can not be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgement i.e. Director of Incometax( Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. Hence, this issue was covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above judgement. Consequently, this issue was answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 10. The ratio of the above mentioned decision reported in 264 ITR 110 (2003) in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking, wherein the Bombay High Court has held that the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income u/s.11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imilar facts, has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee and while enclosing the copy of the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly pleaded that since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, not by one High Court but by second High Court also in which Supreme Court decision's case of Escort Ltd. Vs. UOI and others has been discussed, has concluded to hold the question proposed in favour of the assessee, therefore being covered the matter, order of the CIT(A) for all the years are liable to be upheld. It was thus urged for upholding the impugned orders and for dismissing all the appeals of the Revenue. 10. After hearing both the sides, considering the material as well as case laws cited by the rival side, we find that in the recent judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Tiny Tots Education Society (supra) has concluded to decide the issue in favour of the assessee as per paras 4 to 7 as under:- "4. Ld. Counsel for the Revenue submits that in view of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. and another v.....