TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer in respect of disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 113,36,48,093 for the reason that the cost of assets on which the depreciation is claimed had already been allowed as application of income. 3. At the very outset, the learned AR submitted that the above two issues are covered in favour of the assessee. The learned AR submitted that as regards the first issue mentioned above, the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.720/Bang/2018 and other connected cases for assessment years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015, had held that proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act would not have application to the assessee-society, hence, was entitled to deduction u/s 11 of the I.T.Act. As regards the second issue is concerned, the learned AR submitted that it is covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation in ITA No.599/Bang/2014 (order dated 21.08.2019), wherein the Tribunal by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona reported in 89 txmann.com 127 (SC) had held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on assets though the capital cost of the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which may be approved by the prescribed authority, having regard to the objects of the fund or institution and its importance throughout India or throughout any State or States, shall not form part of the total income under the Act. The prescribed authority withdrew the approval granted to the Assessee consequent to the insertion of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act, on the ground that the Assessee was deriving rental income from letting out space for rent during trade fairs and exhibitions, was deriving income from sale of tickets and income from food and beverage outlets. The said withdrawal was challenged by the Assessee before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had to go into the question as to the scope of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has laid down the following very important principles as to how the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act has to be interpreted: (i) The proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act introduced by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 01.04.2009 has two parts. The first part has reference to the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. The second par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecause a fee or some other consideration is collected or received by an institution, it would not lose its character of having been established for a charitable purpose. If the dominant activity of the institution was not business, trade or commerce, then any such incidental or ancillary activity would also not fall within the categories of trade, commerce or business. If the driving force is not the desire to earn profits but to do charity, the exception carved out in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would not apply. (vi) If a literal interpretation were to be given to the said proviso, then it would risk being hit by Article 14 (the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution). Courts should always endeavour to uphold the Constitutional validity of a provision and, in doing so, the provision in question may have to be read down, as pointed out above. (vii) Section 2(15) is only a definition clause. Section 2 begins with the words, ―in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. The expression "charitable purpose" appearing in Section 2(15) of the said Act has to be seen in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv). When the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the corporation should act on business principles in the sense it has to recover the cost of services rendered to the public which means that it cannot provide service free of cost. Sec.30 of the RTC Act, 1950 provides how profits of the corporation shall be disposed and it lays down that the same shall be used only for road development. 13. It can be seen from the various provisions of the RTC Act, 1950 which we have set out in the earlier part of the order that the dominant and prime objective of the Assessee is not profit making. Prior to the introduction of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, there was no dispute that the Assessee was established for charitable purposes. The stream of traffic revenue and non traffic revenue by itself would demonstrate that the Assessee does not exist for profit. 14. Keeping in mind the above factual aspects and the provisions of the RTC, Act, 1950 and principle laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Promotion Organization (supra), in our view, will clearly show that the Assessee does not driven primarily by desire or motive to earn profits but to do charity throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al asset, cost of acquisition was considered as application of income in the year of its acquisition. The AO took the view that allowing depreciation would amount to allowing double deduction and placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. (supra). The CIT(A), however, allowed the claim of assessee. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal held as follows:- "20. We have considered the rival submissions. If depreciation is not allowed as a necessary deduction for computing income of charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income as it is nothing but a decrease in the value of property through wear, deterioration, or obsolescence. Since income for the purposes of section 11(1) has to be computed in normal commercial manner, the amount of depreciation debited in the books is deductible while computing such income. It was so held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) , following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2....