TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of Rs. 9,75,31,625/- made by AO in respect of franchisee fees received by the DPS Society from different satellite schools which are running under the name and logo of Delhi Public School having different management that the DPS Society. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 11,53,37,424/- as in a case where the capital expenditure has been treated to have been applied for the object of the trust, allowance of deduction on account of depreciation will amount to double deduction. 3: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of depreciation of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brella. Assessee has also been granted permission to around hundred other entities across the country to open school and make use of its brand name. Such other schools which have been allowed permission to use it's name are termed as satellite schools. 2.2. During the year under consideration, assessee had received certain amount towards maintenance charges which were in fact in the nature of franchisee fees obtained by Society for allowing such satellite schools to use its brand name. 2.3. Ld. AO observed that assessee had claimed depreciation on fixed assets utilised for charitable objects of the trust. The Ld. AO observed that assessee had claimed set off of excess expenditure of earlier assessment year and has carried forward cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue now stands settled in favour of assessee and against revenue. It is also observed that Ld.CIT (A) followed the binding decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the previous assessment years. In view of the above we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT (A) and the ground raised by revenue stands dismissed. 5. Ground No. 2&3 This ground has been raised by revenue, as Ld. CIT (A) allowed deduction on account of depreciation. The Ld. AO was of the opinion that assessee was a trust and it was deriving income from depreciable assets. As assessee took into account depreciation on those assets while computing income of trust, Ld.AO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because full capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be computed on commercial principles and in doing so whether depreciation on fixed assets utilized for the charitable purposes should be allowed. On this issue, there seems to be a consensus of judicial thinking. Having regard to the consensus of judicial opinion, we are not inclined to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. There does not appear to be any contrary view plausible on the question raised before us and at any rate no judgement taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice." 11. In view of the above mentioned decision of ITAT in assessee's own case as well as decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of Ld.CIT(A), hence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the decision in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission (supra). It is obvious that in Charanjiv Charitable Trust (supra), the Division Bench could not have taken a different view on the legal ratio as interpreted in Vishwa Jagriti Mission (supra). Further, the decisions in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission and Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (supra) being prior in point of time would act as binding precedents and could not have been overruled or dissented from by a coordinate Division Bench. {Para 10) By Finance (No. 2) Act of 2014, sub-section (6) to Section 11 stands inserted with effect from 1st April, 2015 to the effect that where any income is required to be applied, accumulated or set apart for application, then for such p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed. 6. Ground No. 4&5 This issue has been raised by revenue against the order of Ld. CIT (A) in allowing the set off of loss and carry forward of claim for excess application for the year. 6.1. AO disallowed the set off of Rs. 104,05,05,503/-, excess of expenditure while concluding the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO was of the opinion that the said claim is not reflected in the audited accounts of assessee. 6.2. Ld.AR at the outset submitted that the issue stands covered by this Tribunal in ITA No. 4081/del/2012 for assessment year 2009-10. This Tribunal dealt with this issue as under: "16. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material 'produced and pr....