2021 (8) TMI 1387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the benefits of section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act ignoring the fact that the assessee's activities are not within the purview of the section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 during the year. 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 of Rs. 17,43,964/- for A.Y. 2013-14 and of Rs. 19,14,487 for A.Y. 2014-15 to the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee had claimed the amount incurred on purchase of assets in earlier years as application of income, on which depreciation is claimed now and further allowance o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2013 and 28.09.2014 for both the above respective years declaring 'NIL' income claiming exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer examined the activity of the assessee and held that it falls under General Public Utility. He also found that assessee is charging fees from customers and has obtained Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) from Belgium and transferring through license agreement use of such IPR and un-species. Therefore, according to the Assessing Officer it is covered by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Consequently, for both the assessment years the assessment orders were passed denying the benefit to the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....could not show us that the above order of the co-ordinate bench has been reversed by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of this the order of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier year binds us. Accordingly, respectfully following that order, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Act and there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals). Accordingly, ground No. 1 of both the appeals are dismissed. 8. With respect to the second ground of appeal about the claim of the depreciation, despite the assessee has claimed the whole cost of the assets as application of the income at the time of purchase of those assets has been allowed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) following the decision ....