TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble High Court was right in ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of Escorts Ltd., vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law, in addition to normal deduction. 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter nay ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 2. Assessee-trust filed its return of income on declaring nil income. Assessment was finalised by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. Relying upon the judgments of Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) and Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court he deleted the addition made by the AO. 2.2. Before us, Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the assessee had collected capitation fees, that activities carried out by the assessee were not charitable in nature, that donations were over and above the fees paid by the stundents. 2.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. It is found that out of the total donation of Rs. 30.5 lakhs a sum of Rs. 1.98 lakhs was received from the students. AO has not doubted the fact that the assessee is imparting education and as per the settled law of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority (FAA). After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order he held that trust was registered u/s. 12A of the Act, that AO had not doubted that capital expenditure was towards the objects of the trust. Following the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court delivered in the case of Institute of Banking Personal Selection, Bombay (264 ITR 110) he held that depreciation claimed by the assessee had to be allowed. As a result, addition made by the AO was deleted. 3.2. Before us, Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that assessee was not enetiled to claim double deductions. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that issue of double deduction was dealt b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me. On the other hand, s. 28 of the IT Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and s. 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with s. 30 to s. 43C. That, s. 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for the business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to s. 34. In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the Revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only under s. 32 of the IT Act and not under general principles. The Court rejected this argument. It was held that normal depreciation can be considered....