Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Adampur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.526 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.11.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Market Committee, Adampur. -----Appellant. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant. for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. 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 24.6.2009 in I.T.A. No.1550/Del/09 for theassessment year 2006-07 proposing to raise following substantialquestions of law:- “i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the learned ITAT was justified in allowingpayment of 30% of Market fees earned by it paid tothe Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board asapplication of income for charitable purpose, despitethe finding that 30% of the market fee has to be paidto the said Board as a statutory obligation under theAgricultural Marketing Board Act, and therefore, it isnot application of income, but it is sharing of incomecase, the learned ITAT was justified in allowingpayment of 30% of Market fees earned by it paid tothe Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board asapplication of income for charitable purpose, despitethe finding that 30% of the market fee has to be paidto the said Board as a statutory obligation under theAgricultural Marketing Board Act, and therefore, it isnot application of income, but it is sharing of income by an overriding title as per the Act by which theMarket Committee is governed? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justifiedin holding that depreciation was allowable on thecapital asset, when deduction for capital expenditureincurred for acquisition of these capital assets hasalready been allowed as application of income of the trust? iii)Whether the ITAT’s decision to allow doublededuction on depreciation when capital expenditureon the asset has already been allowed is justified inthe light of Apex Court’s decision in Escorts Ltd. Vs.UOI (199 ITR 43) to the effect that in the absence ofclear statutory indication to the contrary, the statuteshould not be read as to permit an assessee twodeductions on the same expenditure? 3.Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that asfar as question No.(i) is concerned, the same is covered againstthe revenue by judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A.No.151 of 2010Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisarv. Market Committee, Narwanaand question Nos.(ii) and (iii) are coveredagainst the revenue by judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 inI.T.A. No.535 of 2009Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v.Market Committee, Pipli. 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 18, 2010ashwani (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE