2017 (12) TMI 1255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax Act. 2. Ld. DR has supported the miscellaneous application and contended that the amendment in section 11 (6) is clarificatory in nature and applicable respectively and therefore, the claim of depreciation is not allowable. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that this issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court dated 03.10.2017 in case of CIT (E) vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti and another in ITA No. 262/2017 as well as decision dated 14.11.2017 in case of CIT(E) Vs. M/s Compucom Foundation and another in ITA No. 209/2017 and 253/2017. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that an identical issue has been considered by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of a charitable instutition/trust depreciation of assets owned by such institution is a necessary deduction on commercial principles, hence, the amount of depreciation has to be deducted to arrive at the income available. 6. In view of the discussions made above, we find overselves in agreement with the view taken by Bombay High Court in Director of Income Tax v. Framjee Cawasjee institute and in CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel. The substantial question framed in the instant matter, thus, is answered in the terms that the Income Tx Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed depreciation claimed by the assessee on capital assets for which capital expenditure was already given in the year under consideration. 4.1. He has relied upon ano....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. Learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Jhanwar submits that the amount of salary claimed on account of payment to the sons i.e. Anoop and Alok was reasonable, as both are looking after the business and assessee has got paralytic attack in the year 1983, therefore, the payment of salary to these persons at the rate of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 5,000 per month respectively was justified. 5. The facts on record reveals that both are graduates and Anoop, to whom assessee has paid Rs. 6,000 p.m. in the year under consideration was getting only Rs. 1,000 p.m. just in the preceding year. So far paralytic attack to the assessee is concerned, it happened in the year 1983. The assessee has carried on the business even after paralytic attack without the ....