Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Maharaja Aggarsain Medical Education & Scientific Researchsociety

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.693 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Maharaja Aggarsain Medical Education & Scientific ResearchSociety. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing counselfor the Revenue. ---for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NewDelhi dated 30.4.2009 in I.T.A. No.1408/Del/08 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the learned ITAT was justified in holding that thedepreciation on fixed asset is allowable in the case ofcharitable trust/institution particularly when the incomeis computed as per provisions of sections 11 to 13 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and question ofdepreciation does not arise when capital expenditureis also considered as application of income of thecase, the learned ITAT was justified in holding that thedepreciation on fixed asset is allowable in the case ofcharitable trust/institution particularly when the incomeis computed as per provisions of sections 11 to 13 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and question ofdepreciation does not arise when capital expenditureis also considered as application of income of the assessee and there remains to assets/WDV for claimof depreciation. The strength is drawn from the orderof the Hon’ble Supreme Coprt of India passed in thecase of Escorts Ltd. & another Vs. Union of Indiaand others reported in 199 ITR 43 (108) CTR 275,wherein it has been held that when deduction unders.35(2) (iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditureon scientific research, no depreciation is allowedunder s.32 on the same asset. There is afundamental axiom that double deduction is notintended unless there is a clear statutory indication tothe contrary.” Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that thematter is covered against the revenue by judgment of this Courtdated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.151 of 2010 CITv. MarketCommittee, Narwana. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 14, 2010ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE