Commissioner Of Income Tax-(E), Pune… v. Pimpri Chinchwad Education Trust

Digitallysigned bySHRADDHASHRADDHAKAMLESHKAMLESHTALEKARTALEKARDate:2023.01.2311:13:45+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 931 OF 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax-(E), Pune… Appellant Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Education Trust …Respondent *** Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for appellant. CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE :13[th] JANUARY, 2023. P C : 1.This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1960 (‘the Act’) against the order dated 4[th] May 2017 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune (‘ITAT’). 2.The following questions of law have been framed for ourconsideration : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the ITAT is right in allowing the appeal ofthe assessee by ignoring the facts that assessee societylike charitable or religious institutions are governed byalmost separate or independent provisions of Sections 11,12, 12A, 12AA & 13 and these provisions are independentCode in itself in Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961and claim of depreciation u/s 32 comes under Chapter IVof the Act under the head ‘D’ – Profit and Gains ofBusiness or Profession and depreciation is allowed when capital assets are used for the purpose of business? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the ITAT is right in allowing the appeal of theassessee by ignoring the facts that assessee is not eligiblefor any type of depreciation as the entire expenditure forthe purchase of capital assets is allowed as a deductionand the same is treated as application of income u/s11(1) and claiming depreciation on the same capitalassets is a double deduction and is not as per law as thesecapital assets are also been challenged in various casesbefore the Apex Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that thequestions of law have already been answered by the Apex Court inCommissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune Vs. Rajasthan & GujaratiCharitable Foundation Poona [1]. 4.Be that as it may, no substantial question of law arises inthe appeal. 5.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. [ KAMAL KHATA, J. ] [DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.] 1[2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 (SC)