2018 (9) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Vide its grounds 1 to 6, assessee is aggrieved that depreciation Rs. 64, 95, 237/- claimed by it was not allowed. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was a trust registered u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''). As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee was denied depreciation for a reason that cost of the assets on which such depreciation was claimed was allowed as application of income. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, by virtue of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, (2018) 89 Taxmann. com 127, where an assessee is a charitable institution registered u/s. 12A of the Act even though expenditure claimed for acqui....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5, 26, 33, 163 1, 18, 02, 963 2007-08 16, 00, 04, 266 13, 60, 03, 626 16, 24, 47, 030 24, 42, 764 2008-09 11, 89, 46, 495 10, 11, 04, 521 12, 05, 72, 697 16, 26, 202 2009-10 12, 94, 29, 585 11, 00, 15, 147 13, 04, 44, 331 10, 14, 746 Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that assessee was eligible for claiming carry forward of such excess by virtue of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Matriseva Trust, 242 ITR 20. 8. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that income of the trust was not to be computed as per Section 28 to 44DB of the Act. According to him, the question of spending money in excess of income would arise only when there was real income. As pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n High Court and the Gujarat High Court have answered the questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6. Following the aforesaid decisions of the Rajasthan and the Gujarat High Courts, we answer the second question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue''. There is no dispute that excess of application claimed by the assessee was the amount which was expended above its income. In other words, assessee only claimed excess application without considering accumulation of 15% allowed to it. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that assessee was eligible for claiming the carry forward of excess over application of income pertaining to the earlier years. Orders of the lower authorities is set a....