2019 (5) TMI 1320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ''1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2.1 The Id. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible to set off of brought forward excess application of funds to subsequent years. 2.2 The Id. CIT (A) failed to observe that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act which allows for determination of loss uls 11 and carry forward of the same to subsequent year to be set off against income of the subsequent year. 2.3. The CIT(A) failed to observe that the income of the trust is not computed on the principles of business income which contains the provisions of carry forward of losses of earlier year an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed after seeking the view of the CBDT. In that case, the High Court held that "if the assessee treats expenditure on acquisition of assets as application of income for charitable purposes under section 11(1) (a), then assessee cannot claim depreciation on value of such assets. " 3.4 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of DIT Vs. M/s. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 43 taxmann.com 300 (Del) wherein it has been held that depreciation would not be allowed in cases where the Trusts are claiming the cost of acquisition of assets as application of income. 3.5 The ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the Apex Court decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Limited (65 Tax....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh Court and in another case of DIT(Exem) Vs AI-Ameen Charitable Fund rust (2016) taxmann.com160 bearing No. Civil Appeal No. 008019 I 2016, also SLP has been admitted. 4. For these and other rounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored''. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent assessee is a public charitable trust running a community general hospital and it was duly registered u/s.12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''') on 30.11.1990. The return of income for the AY 2009-10 was filed on 30.09.2011 claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The assessment was complet....