Already Decided By The Division Bench Of This Court In Thecommon Judgment In T.c.a.nos.343 To 345 & 347 Of 2014[Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichy v. M/S.national Collegecouncil, Teppakulam, Tiruchirapalli – 620 002] Wherein Thedivision Bench Held As Follows

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA The Commissioner of Income Tax,Coimbatore. ... Appellantv. M/s.Kovai Medical Centre and Educational Trust,KMCH Campus, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore - 641 011. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, "C" Bench, dated 07.10.2013 in I.T.A.No.1772/Mds/2012for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. Confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Coimbatore in Appeal No.151/11-12 dated 09.07.2012preferred against the Assessment order of the Income Taxofficer, Company Ward-I, Coimbatore dated 13.12.2011 inPAN.No.AAATK2825P for the Assessment Year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr.J. NarayanaswamySenior Standing Counsel For Respondent : No Appearance Challenging the order passed in I.T.A.No.1772/Mds/2012 inrespect of the Assessment Year 2009-2010 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,"C" Bench (for brevity,the Tribunal), the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 2. The respondent-assessee is a Charitable Trust registeredunder section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assesseefiled its return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 28.08.2009. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section143(2) of the Act on 13.12.2011. While concluding theassessment, the Assessing Officer inter alia held that thedepreciation claimed by the assessee would not be allowable asa deduction in the computation of the funds available forapplication by the assessee on the premise that the entire costof the assets were allowed as an application of the funds in theyear when the same were purchased. The Assessing Officer alsoheld that the provisions of section 11 is distinct from that ofsection 14 and that the deductions and allowances that areprovided in Chapter V cannot be applied in determining theincome for the purpose of section 11 of the Act. Aggrieved overthe order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assesseepreferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee andheld that the depreciation is to be deducted in arriving at thetotal income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal and the Tribunal, dismissed the appeal.Challenging the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 3. The above appeal was admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law: “ (i) Whether in law and in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal is rightin holding that depreciation is allowable asapplication of income on charitable objects? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee is entitledto claim depreciation on the assets, in the formof application of income, even though cost ofpurchase of asset was treated as application ofincome under section 11? (iii) Whether in law and in the facts and inthe circumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in holding that allowing the depreciationclaim of the assessee would not result in doublededuction, though the entire costs of thedepreciable assets have already been allowed asas application of income towards objects of thetrust?" 3. .When the appeal is taken up for hearing,Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing forthe appellant-revenue fairly submitted that the substantialquestions of law that are raised in the above appeal were (iii) Whether in law and in the facts and inthe circumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in holding that allowing the depreciationclaim of the assessee would not result in doublededuction, though the entire costs of thedepreciable assets have already been allowed asas application of income towards objects of thetrust?" 3. .When the appeal is taken up for hearing,Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing forthe appellant-revenue fairly submitted that the substantialquestions of law that are raised in the above appeal were already decided by the Division Bench of this court in theCommon Judgment in T.C.A.Nos.343 to 345 & 347 of 2014[Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy Vs. M/s.National CollegeCouncil, Teppakulam, Tiruchirapalli – 620 002] wherein theDivision Bench held as follows:- " ................. 4.When the appeals were takenup for hearing, Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned SeniorStanding Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenuein all the appeals, fairly submitted that thesubstantial question of law, which has been framed inthese appeals, have been answered against the Revenueby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Rajasthan andGujarati Charitable Foundation reported in [2018] 402ITR 441 (SC). Further, the learned Senior StandingCounsel submitted that following the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Division Bench ofthis Court, by judgment dated 26.08.2019, made inT.C.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2011 [Commissioner of Income Tax– I, Tiruchirapalli Vs. M/s.National College Council,P.B.No.369,ChatramBusStand,Teppakulam,Tiruchirapalli – 620 002] dismissed the appeals andanswered the substantial questions of law against theRevenue. The appeals in T.C.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2011relates to the very same assessee. Hence, followingthe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in[2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC) and the judgment of theHon'ble Division Bench of this Court made inT.C.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2011, the substantial questionof law is answered against the Revenue and the appealsare dismissed. No costs. 5. In view of the fair submission made by the learnedSenior Standing Counsel, following the Judgment dated 26.02.2021made in T.C.A.Nos.343 to 345 & 347 of 2014 [cited supra], thequestions of law are answered against the Revenue and the TaxCase Appeal is dismissed. No costs. RjTo https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Coimbatore.Coimbatore. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I)Coimbatore.Coimbatore. 4.The Income Tax Officer,Company Ward-I, Coimbatore.Company Ward-I, Coimbatore. T.C.A.No.407 of 2014 GMI(CO)CS/11/05/2021