2012 (3) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 9.11.2010 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee trust came into existence in 1986. The assessee is having property titled as 'Najam Baug' and is registered with the Charity Commissioner under Bombay Public Trus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom) held that the AO was not justified in disallowing the carry forward of deficit and in denying set off against the income of the subsequent years and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow to carry forward the deficit to the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us taking the following grounds: 1.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... law, the Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai, erred in allowing the claim of brought forward of deficits by ignoring the principle set out by the Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 according to which the law should not be read so as to allow more than one deduction for the same outgoing." 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai, erred in ignoring the fact ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) wherein Their Lordships after considering various decisions including the decision in CIT V/s Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) have held as under: "9. In the present case, the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been suggested by learned counsel for the Revenue. The income of the assessee being exempt, the ....