TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntical grounds except the difference in amount inter alia that :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the activities of the assessee do not quality for charitable purpose in view of the provisions of Section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence the income of the assessee does not qualify for exemption u/s 11/12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, 1d CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that when deduction is allowed in respect of capital expenditure, no depreciation is allowed on the same assets as this will lead to double. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and rental income has not accounted in the books. The income as per mercantile method of accounting has to be offered to tax on accrual basis. Such income which has accrued but not received is shown as receivable or under the head Sundry Debtor as the case may be in the Balance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 6. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. GROUND NO.1 OF AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 7. AO by invoking the amended provisions of section 2 (15) of the Act denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act to the assessee organisation on the ground that the assessee does not qualify for charitable purposes. However, ld. CIT (A) by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case rendered in WP (C) 1872 / 2013 proceeded to hold that the assessee is entitled for benefit of exemption claimed u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. Operative part of the aforesaid decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case (supra) is extracted for ready perusal as under :- "58. In conclusion, we may say that the expression "charitable purpose", as defined in Section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue in favour of the assessee holding that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. So, ground no.1 in AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 is determined against the Revenue. GROUND NO.2 IN AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 9. AO made disallowance of Rs. 2,11,52,612/-, Rs. 1,69,34,321/- & Rs. 1,37,55,543 in AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively on the ground that when deduction is allowed in respect of capital expenditure, no depreciation is allowed on the same assets as it would lead to double deduction. However, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the depreciation by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA No.7 / 2013 order dated 27.11.2013 rendered in assessee's own case. 10. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid decision in assessee's own case (supra) vide order dated 06.09.2013 dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal; the operative part of the order is extracted for ready perusal as under :- "14. From the year 1984 onwards, there have been a number of decisions of various High Courts taking a similar and identical view, as that of Society of the Sisters of St. Anne (s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be made on commercial basis by applying provisions of the Act." 11. So, following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case (supra), the ld. CIT (A) has rightly allowed the depreciation in favour of the assessee and thereby deleted the disallowance made by the AO. So, we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order on this issue. Consequently, ground no.2 in AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 is determined against the Revenue. GROUND NO.3 IN AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 12. AO made addition of Rs. 1,68,73,663, Rs. 2,01,86,003 & Rs. 1,83,00,000 in AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively on a/c of space rent income on the basis of disclosure in Notes to Accounts of the assessee. However, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that since space rent account is disputed by two Government Departments viz. National Science Centre and Crafts Museum by contesting the ownership of land attracting rent by the assessee and claimed that they are in possession of the land and as such it is uncertain, no addition can be made. 13. Ld. CIT (A) has thrashed the facts in detail and by applying the decision rendered by various Hon'ble High Courts ....