2021 (7) TMI 1023

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals) is not justified in confirming the assessed income of the trust at Rs. 11,38,210 as assessed by the assessing officer which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the exclusion of depreciation of Rs. 9,98,190 from application of the trust. 3. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee's trust is not entitled to claim depreciation if there is no business activity. 4. The CIT (Appeals) is not justified in ignoring the fact that in the assessee's own case for the Asst.Year 2013-14, the CIT (Appeals) -17 has allowed the depreciation claim of the assessee as per his order dated 14.09.17 in ITA .No.280/2015-16. 5. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee has claimed depreciation on asset, the cost of which was claimed as application of income in earlier assessment years and hence, by following the decision of the ITAT, Chennai in assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-10 held that once acquisition of capital asset was considered as application of income in the year of acquisition, then depreciation on such asset tantamount to double deduction which is not permissible under the Act. Therefore, he opined that depreciation claimed by the assessee as application of income on the assets which was claimed as application of income in earlier year cannot be allowed. Hence, disallowed depreciation claim of Rs. 9,89,891/- Similarly, the AO has disallowed carry forward of excess ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st, [2017] 84 Taxamnn.com 202, where it was held that provisions of section 11(6) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. assessment year 2015-16 cannot be applied retrospectively prior to assessment year 2015-16. He further argued that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation, [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC), where it was categorically held that income of an institution was to be computed on commercial principles after providing for allowances for normal depreciation and held that the trusts are entitled to depreciation u/s.32 of the Act, on assets whose cost has been allowed as application to charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., supra. We further noted that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs. Medical Trust of the Seventh Day Adventist, supra, has considered the provisions of section 11(6) inserted by the Finance Act (2) of 2014 w.e.f. AY 2015-16 and held that said amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to assessment years prior to AY 2015-16. The amendment inserted specifically w.e.f. AY 2015- 16 seeks to disturb a vested right that has accrued to the assessee and the amendment does not purport to be clarificatory. We, further noted that in the said judgement, the Hon'ble High Court after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited and another vs. Union of India, 1999 ITR 43 held that depreciation....