TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1811
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7255/Del/2017 against the CIT(A)-I, Noida's common orders dated 25.09.2017 passed in Appeal No. 91/2014-15/Noida and 234/2014-15/Noida in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"); respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. We advert to the assessee's first and foremost quantum appeal ITA No. 4465/Del/2017 (AY 2011-12) raising the following "revised" grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in law, in issuing the notice u/s. 251(2) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, in law in enhancing the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi in the case of DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission reported in 262 CTR 558. The depreciation claim of Rs. 38,62,562/- is liable to be allowed as a deduction. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 52,38,500/- made by the AO is treating the development receipts as revenue receipts instead of capital receipts. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the receipts were collected for specific purposes and, therefore, are not liable to be taxed under section 11(1)(d) of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,05,400 /- made by the AO, treating the library fund as revenue receipts i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ire receipts of Rs. 4,21,15,375/- ought to be treated as income from "other" sources u/s. 56(1) of the Act. 4.1 The Revenue quotes CIT vs. Nirbheram Deluram [1997] 139 CTR 484 (SC) and Goel Diecast Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 297 ITR 72 (P&H) with such an enhancement could indeed be made in the lower appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and the Revenue's foregoing respective stands against and in support of the impugned enhancement to the extent of assessing the assessee's entire gross receipts derived from educational activities. We find no reason to sustain the CIT(A)'s action. This is for the precise reason that such an exercise of adding the entire receipts amounts to an al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) has further settled the very issue in assessee's favour and against the department for the prior period to the above statutory amendment. We thus see no merit in the Revenue's contentions supporting the impugned depreciation disallowance of Rs. 38,62,562/- which stands deleted therefore. The assessee's 6th substantive ground succeeds. 7. Coming to the assessee's substantive ground nos. 7 to 9, learned counsel vehemently argues that both the lower authorities have erred in on facts and in law in treating its development, library fund receipts involving specific directions from the donation/contributions as re venue items involving varying sums as liable to be assessed. He could not pin-point any such specific directions of the assessee'....