TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c) of the IT Act. 2. The brief facts, as emerging on the face of record, are that the respondent-assessee is a cultural society generating creative artistic activities through programs in the field of performing arts, visual arts, literature, electronic media & film, folklore, indigenous craft etc. The assessee-society was constituted as an autonomous body by the Government of Rajasthan vide order dt.11/08/2003 to preserve and promote art and culture in Rajasthan and to contribute to the cultural and social development of the people of the State. Consequent to the order dt.11/08/2003, the assessee-society came to be formed and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1958 on 19/09/2003. During the course of hearing before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any evidence in order to prove the change of ownership of the building and assets from the Government of Rajasthan to the assessee-society and on records, the title still continued to be with the State of Rajasthan consequently the AO observed that since the assessee-society was not the owner, therefore, the depreciation cannot be allowed. 4. It appears from the order of the penalty passed by the AO that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Jaipur (for short, the "CIT(A)" partly allowed the claim of depreciation at Rs. 28,30,694/- as against the total claim of Rs. 1,90,31,645/- and that it disallowed claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,62,00,951/-, it appears that neither the Revenue nor the assessee-society challenged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in view of this fact there was a wrong claim or a claim which was patently inadmissible, therefore, the assessee was not at all entitled for depreciation and even the disallowance of depreciation was not challenged further and attained finality and on these findings, the claim of depreciation was held to be inappropriate/ inadmissible and therefore, the AO rightly imposed penalty which was sustained by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal by deleting the penalty is unjustified, thus he contended that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and substantial question of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order as well as further order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Appeal NO.121/2012 had upheld the finding of the Tribunal for allowing depreciation to the respondent-assessee in the assessment year 2007-08 and in the aforesaid order, this Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mysore Mineral Ltd. Vs. CIT: (1999) 239 ITR 775; Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd: (2011) 238 CTR 113; Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Metalman Auto P. Ltd.: (2011) 336 ITR 434 (P&H) and after relying upon the said judgments ultimately observed as under:- "In our view, on the face of record, we are of the clear opinion that the assessee-society had rightly been allowed ....