2026 (2) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... These cases have been remanded back by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis that earlier two appeals i.e. D.B. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 218/2017 and 113/2016, which were decided by this Court on 06.09.2017, had come up before the Supreme Court and vide order dated 08.09.2022, the said appeals have been remanded back by the Supreme Court. After remand, this Court on 02.08.2024 decided D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 218/2017. This Court admitted the D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 218/2017 on the following substantial questions of law, which read as under: "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in allowing the exemption u/s 11 of the Act by holding that the activities of the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 150/2017 framed the following substantial questions of law: "(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing the development expenditure of Rs. 1,52,05,67,555/- by relying on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in earlier year inspite of the fact the assessee has changed method of accounting. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing a sum of Rs. 16,07,46,872/- on account of disallowing 5% of administrative expenditure related to change in accounting policy. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing Rs. 1,81,89,705/- on acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing Rs. 1,36,09,228/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure of the capital asset is already allowed as capital expenditure hence further allowance of the depreciation on the same capital asset would tantamount to double depreciation." 7. This Court, while admitting D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 284/2010 framed the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether overlooking of specific provisions of Section 10(20) and 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which categorically has taken away the exemption given to local authorities from income t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 10 (20) of the Act being not applicable and relied upon the order passed in SLP(C) Nos. 12252/2018 and 23739/2018 (supra) wherein, the Supreme Court had passed the remand order dated 08.09.2022. No other question was raised by the department. 10. It would be further apposite to quote the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the order dated 29.11.2024, while remanding the present cases as under: "Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that although these appears are being remanded to the High court for a fresh consideration, the fact remains that the respondent-assessee has never claimed the benefit under Section 10 (20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "Act") and therefore, the High Court was not justified in d....