Commissioner Of Income Tax Hisar v. Market Committee, Jakhal

,~ }-~::.>0u:I:'i~n- ;J:,~Z~~«J:0z<!OJ<t:JZ::Ja.. '/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Income Tax Appeal No. 177,of 2011Date of decision: 8.7.2011 Commissionerof Income TaxHisarVersusMarket Committee, Jakhal ---Appellant --- Respondent CORAM:HON'BlEMR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOElACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BlEMR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAl Present:'Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counselfor the appellanFrevenue.for the appellanFrevenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-TaxAct,1961 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the revenue against theorder dated 18.6.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate TribunalINewDelhi,Bench'E'(in'short"theTribunal")in.ITANo.1336/DeI/2010,relating to the assessment year 2007~08.2.Thefollowingsubstantialquestionsof law havebeenclaimed for determinationof this Court:"1-Whetheron the factsand in the circumstancesof thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in allowing depreciationoncapitalassetsevenwhencapitalexpenditureonacquisitionof the correspondingassets had already been r~-. Income Tax AQ2eal No. 177 of 2011 -.allowedas'applicationof income'for thepurposeofallowing exemptionunder Section11 of, the Income TaxAct and as such further allowing of depreciationon thesecapitalasset~will amountto doubledeductionfor thesame expenditure?2-Whether allowing of depreciation on the capital assets byHon'ble ITAT is justified in the light of the Hon'ble ApexCourt decision in the caseof EscortsIndia Ltd. (199 ITR, .l-43), wherein it has been held that in the absence of cleare::::J0statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not,()be read as to permit an assesseetwo deductions on theJ:tnl..I-same expenditure?"J:,~3.Learnedcounsel for the revenuefairly conceded' thatz<!similar questions, as noticed above, have been adjudicated upon by>-a:this Court against the Revenue in Income Tax Appeal No. 535 of«:I:2009(TheCommissionerof IncomeTax,KarnalVS. MarketJ''O,,Committee,Pipli), decidedon 5.7.2010and the appeal filed by theZ«revenue was dismissed.UJ«~4.In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.z:Ja... , ~~2- July 8, 2011 *rkmalik* ".>C..."..~ ""--'-"'"-'-~. "..~ ""--'-"'"-'-~.