TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised the following grounds of appeal: 1.The order of CIT(A) is arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of law and against the facts. 2. Article 289 2.1 Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the ground that the appellant is a state and as per article 289 of Constitution of India appellant's income is not subject to income tax. 2.2 Ld. CIT (A) erred is not appreciating the fact that the appellant is a state and as per article 289 of Constitution of India its income is not taxable. 3. Charitable 3.1 Ld. CIT (A) erred in mechanically following the decision of Hon. ITAT Chennai for AY 2009-10 even though it was demonstrated that the decision of tribunal was based on erroneous assumption of facts and an independent decision need to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd it is outside the scope of taxation. 5. Depreciation 5.1 Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the depreciation as the relevant amendment came only in Finance Act 2014 without any retrospective effect and it is a settled position. of law that depreciation is an allowable expenditure eventhough the cost of respective asset was allowed as deduction in earlier years. 5.2 Ld. CIT(A) has failed to understand that once the assessee is assessed as AOP all provisions with respects to Block of Assets and Depreciation will become mandatorily applicable and denial of depreciation on the basis of section 11 & 12 is incorrect as these provisions are not applicable to AOP. The appellant craves for justice for these grounds and on additional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the business organizations. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case dismissed the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld. Authorised Representative contended that assessee society was instrumentality of the State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution and discharging function as an extended arm of the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore excess of the income over expenditure cannot be brought to tax as it is not assessable entity, in support of this, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r earlier years. No argument were advanced as to how the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee. The whole case of the assessee is premised on the argument that it is instrumentality of the State coming within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution and therefore it is not an assessable entity. Submissions made by the ld. Counsel cannot be accepted even the State Corporation Societies cannot be equated with State Government though it is instrumentality of the State as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 286 ITR 89. Further, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of National Diary Research Institute vs. ACIT (TDS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. '10. We are of the view that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Assessee on the aforesaid decision is of any help to the present case. The question in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswal (supra) was regarding as to whether CSIR is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As by the learned DR before us, the meaning of the word "State" has been defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the decision has to be confined to those cases and cannot extent to interpretation of Rule 3 of the IT Rules, 1962. Public corporations are established by Government to achieve purpose of welfare state. Financial autonomy and functiona....