Date Of Order 21-08-2018 I.t.a v. M/S.chalassani Education Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF AUGUST 2018. PRESENT THR HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICK VINBET KOTHARI| ANT) THR HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA| 1.T.A.No.852 OF 2017 BETWEEN: Ll.Pr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE. oOTHR DY. COMMISSIONER | OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE. .. APPELLANTS (BY MR. SANMATHI E.I, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S.CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST NO.420, CHALASANI MAIN ROAD,WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560 O66.PAN: AABITCO124 _ RESPONDENT. THIS IL.T.A IS FILED UNDER SBCTION 2VJ6O0-AINCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER)DATED 26.4.2017 PASSED IN I.T.A.No.887/BNG/2016,FORTHE.ASSKHSSMEBNYRKAR2011-2012VIDE| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 2/27 ANNBXURE-A PRAYING THIS HON'BLK COURT TO:|DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR-SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE)RFORMULATBKED BY THR HON'BLBE COURT AS DBBFIT AND SET ASIDB THR APPBKELLATKE ORDER DAT26.04.2017 PASSED BY THER INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL,'B'BENCH,BANGALORE,INAPPHBKAPROCEBEEBEDINO.|ITA|NO.887/BNG/2016|KORASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ASSOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH|OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF|JUSTICE. THIS LT.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,Dr. VINE ET KOTHARJ-T MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Mr.Sanmathi1.E.I.9Advocate tor Appellants-Revenue The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the questions raised in the present appeal is covered by the decisions of this Court. | 3/27 2. The proposed substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal of Revenue are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:-_ “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstancesof|the|CAaAStheTribunal is right in holding that)provisions relating to set-off of lossfrom one head against income fromanother head and carry forward andset —off of loss from one head againstincome from another head and carryforward and set-off of loss againstthe income of subsequent years as)envisaged under Sections 70 to 79 ofthe|Actareapplicable|To the|charitable trust t.e., the assesseeherein by following its earlier ordereven when the normal computation ofincome under respective heads asenvisaged under Sections 15 to 59are not applicable to the computationof income in respect of Trusts as perSections 11, 12 and 13?) 4/27 2. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstancesof|theCase,the|Tribunal is right in law in holding)that the assessee 1s entitled to carry|forward of excess application ofincome as claimed by the assesseeeven when the concept of applicationof is only to show that the income isfully utilized rather than claimingexcess expenditure either revenue or capital over and above the income so|as|toclaim|CXCACSSapplication/deficit/ loss to be carried forward tosubsequent assessment years evenin the case of excess application byvirtueof|borrowed/funds/ corpusfund donations set apart of earlieryears, the income of the assesseecannot be reverted to loss but at bestit can be made nil?”| 3.|This Court in the case ot“Commissioner| of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & GujaratiCharitableFoundationPoona’[2018]89| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 5/27 taxmann.com 127 [SC' with regard to allowability and Depreciation in the hands of Religious andCharitable Trust held as under: 3.|This Court in the case ot“Commissioner| of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & GujaratiCharitableFoundationPoona’[2018]89| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 5/27 taxmann.com 127 [SC' with regard to allowability and Depreciation in the hands of Religious andCharitable Trust held as under: 65Learned Counsel at the Barsubmitted that so far as the issueregarding claim of Depreciation undersection 32 of the Act is concerned, thecontroversy is no longer res integra,having been settled by the HonbleoupremeCourtin|theCASEof‘Commissioner of Income Tax-Ill,|PuneVU.RajasthanOSGujaratiCharitableFoundationPoona’[2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 , bywhich the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasaffirmed the view taken by the BombayHighCourtin.“CommissionerofIncome Tax v. Institute of BanktingPersonnel Selection (I[BPS)’ [2003]131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]| The relevant|portion of the said Judgment of BombayHigh Court as quoted by the Hon’ble 6/27 Supreme Court and affirmed is quotedbelow for ready reference. “TntheSaid.judgment,/BombayHighCourt]thecontention of the Departmentpredicated on double benefitwas turned down tin thefollowing manner: 3. As stated above, the firstquestionwhichrequiresconsideration by this court ts :whetherdepreciationLUaSallowable on the assets, thecost of which has been fullyallowedas|applicationofincome under section 11 inthe past years? In the case ofCIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994Tax Law Reporter, 1084 thefacts were as follows. Theassessee was aq CharitableTrust. It was registered as aPublic Charitable Trust. Itwas also registered with the Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 7/27 Commiussioner,Pune. TheaSSeCSSCEderivedincome.from the temple propertywhichWas(oTrustproperty.During the courseof assessment proceedings forassessment years 1977-75,1978-79 and 1979-80,|theaSSCSSCCclaimeddepreciation on the valueof the building at the rateof 2.5 per cent' and theyalso claimed depreciation onfurniture at the rate of 5 percent.Thequestionwhicharose before the court fordetermination was: whetherdepreciation could be deniedtothe|ASSESSEE,|as|expenditure on acquisition ofthe assets had been treatedas application of income inthe year of acquisition? It washeld by the Bombay HighCourt that section 11 of the Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 8/27 IncomeTaxActmakesprovisionin|respectofcomputation of income of theTrust from the properly heldforcharitableOrreligiouspurposes and it also providesforapplicationandaccumulation of income. Onthe other hand, section 28 ofthe Income Tax Act deals withchargeability of income fromprofits and gains of businessand section 29 provides thatincome from profits and gainsof business shall be computedin accordance with section 30to section 43C, That, section32(1) of the Act provides fordepreciationinrespectof|building, plant and machineryowned by the assessee andused|forthebusinesspurposes. It further providesfordeduction|subjectTo section 34. [In that matter 9/27 also, a similar argument, asin the present case, wasadvanced on behalf of therevenue,namely,thatdepreciation can be allowedas|deductiononlyundersection 32 of the Income TaxAct and not under generalprinciples. The court rejectedthis argument. It was heldthat normal depreciation canbe considered as a legitimatededuction in computing thereal income of the assesseeon general principles or undersection 11(1)(a) of the IncomeTax Act. The court rejected theargument on behalf of therevenue that section 32 of theIncome Tax Act was the onlysection granting benefit ofdeductionOnaccountof|depreciation. It was held thatincome of a Charitable Trustderived from building, plant 10/27 9/27 also, a similar argument, asin the present case, wasadvanced on behalf of therevenue,namely,thatdepreciation can be allowedas|deductiononlyundersection 32 of the Income TaxAct and not under generalprinciples. The court rejectedthis argument. It was heldthat normal depreciation canbe considered as a legitimatededuction in computing thereal income of the assesseeon general principles or undersection 11(1)(a) of the IncomeTax Act. The court rejected theargument on behalf of therevenue that section 32 of theIncome Tax Act was the onlysection granting benefit ofdeductionOnaccountof|depreciation. It was held thatincome of a Charitable Trustderived from building, plant 10/27 and machinery and furniturewas liable to be computed innormal commercial manneralthough the Trust may not becarrying on any business andthe assets in respect whereofdepreciation is claimed maynot be business assets. In allsuch cases, section 32 of theIncome Tax Act providing fordepreciation for computationof|incomederivedfrombusiness or profession 1s notapplicable.However,|the|income of the Trust is requiredto be computed under section11 on commercial principlesafter providing for allowancefor normal depreciation anddeduction thereof from grossincome of the Trust. In view ofthe aforestated Judgment ofthe Bombay High Court, weanswer question No. I in theaffirmative te., in favour of 11/27 the assessee and against thedepartment. 4.Question No. 2 hereinis identical to the questionwhich was raised before theBombay High Court in thecase of Director of Income Tax(Exemption)Vv.FramjeeCawasjee Institute (1993) 109CTR 463 (Bom). In that case,the facts were as follows: Theassessee was the Trust. Itderiveditsincomefrom)depreciableassets.Theassessee took into accountdepreciation on those assetsin computing the income ofthe Trust.The Income TaxOfficerheldthat|depreciation could not be’takenintoaCcCCOuUbecause,fullcapitalexpenditurehadbeen|allowed in the year of Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 12/27 acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appealbefore the Assistant AppellateCommissioner. Theappealwas rejected. The Tribunal,however, took the view thatwhen the Income Tax OfficerStated that full expenditurehad been allowed in the yearof acquisition of the assets,whathe really meant wasthat the amount spent on'acquiring those assets had beentreatedaS|‘application of income’ ofthe Trust in the year in'whichtheincomeWasSpent in acquiring those.assets. This did not meanthat in computing income|fromthoseassetsin|subsequentyears,depreciation in respect of.thoseassetscannotbe|taken into account.This Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 13/27 view of the Tribunal has beenconfirmed by, the BombayHighCourtin|theabove|judgment.Hence,QuestionNo. 2 1s covered by _ thdecision of the Bombay HighCourt in the above judgment.Consequently, Question No. 2is answered in the affirmativeLe., In favour of the assesseeand against, the department. After hearing learned counsel for theparties,we are of the opinion thatthe aforesaid view taken by theBombay High Court correctly states|the principles of law and there is noneed to interfere with the same7 < 6. Since the issue regarding claim ofDepreciationIn|the|hands|of|theCharitable Trust ts no longer res integra,We|areof|theopinionthatnosubstantial question of law now arises Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 14/27 in the present Appeals filed by theRevenue.” 4. With regard to carrying forward of the losses for being set off against the income of the charitableTrust.{OrthepresentAssessmentYear,the|controversy1S.COVeTECby thejudgmentin.Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) andanother .vs. Ohio University Christ Collegerendered on17.07.20181n-ITA.No.312/2016 and ITA No.313/2016, 1n which this Court held as.under: 6. Since the issue regarding claim ofDepreciationIn|the|hands|of|theCharitable Trust ts no longer res integra,We|areof|theopinionthatnosubstantial question of law now arises Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 14/27 in the present Appeals filed by theRevenue.” 4. With regard to carrying forward of the losses for being set off against the income of the charitableTrust.{OrthepresentAssessmentYear,the|controversy1S.COVeTECby thejudgmentin.Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) andanother .vs. Ohio University Christ Collegerendered on17.07.20181n-ITA.No.312/2016 and ITA No.313/2016, 1n which this Court held as.under: “16. In so far as the second question|proposed by the Revenue, quoted aboveis concerned also, we find that _ thTribunal’s findings in this regard do not|give rise to any substantial question oflaw. The said findings are quoted below|for ready reference : “5 1In.the|COUTSECof|assessment.proceedings,theAssessing Officer observed that) 15/27 theaSSCS SCEhad.claimedapplication of income on account|of|expenditure of earlier years, whichhasbeen|broughtforward and set off tn the yearunderconsideration.TheAssessing Officer disallowed the|same on the ground that there is|no express provision in the Act|permittingtheadjustmentof|earlieryearsbroughtforwardexpenses as application of income|in the current year. According to|theAssessingOfficer,theapplicationof|income|forcharitableDUrposes—MUST|beduring the relevant previous year. |Since the income of the trust 1s|exempt from tax, the question of|deficit does not arise and also the|trust is required to utilize 85% of|the income of the previous yearfor|charitable purposes during the|year. In this view of the matter|and for the above reasons, the| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 16/27 Assessing Officer disallowed the|assessee’s claim of expenditure ofearlieryearsbeingbroughtforward and set off during the|year. 5.2 On appeal, the learnedCIT|(Appeals)allowedtheamortization of the expenditure as claimed by the assessee and|deleted the disallowance madeby |the Assessing Officer by placing|reliance on the decision of the|Hon’ble Karnataka High Courtin the case of CIT Vs. Societyof the Sisters of St. Annereported in 146 ITR 28 (1984)and CBDT Circular No.5-P(LXX)-6 of 1968. 5.3.1 We have heard therivalcontentionsof|both|the|learnedDepartmentalRepresentatives for Revenue and|the|learnedAuthorisedRepresentative for the assessee| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 17/27 andperusedandcarefullyconsidered the material on record,includingthe|judicialpronouncements cited. The facts|of the issue before us 1s that theassessee had incurred certain|preliminary expenditure in theyear of setting up of the trust.The same is amortised by theassessee trust over a pertod of5 years from the year ofincurring of expenditure.The.factof|amortizationLUaSnotdisputed by the Assessing Officer|in the assessment proceedings for|Assessment Year 2OO7-O8 where|the entire amount was addedbackclaiming1/5[th]of|theexpenditure. The wun-amortizedexpenditure has been _ broughforward and set off as application|of income in subsequent years,|including the assessment years|2OO8-O09 and POOYI-10 which arunder consideration. Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 18/27 0.3.2 We find that the issuebefore us 1s directly related to the|issue decided by the Hon’ble|Karnataka High Court in the case|of Sisters of St. Anne (Supra) cited|by the assessee. In the said case,the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court|at paras 8 to 10 thereof has held|as under: - Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 18/27 0.3.2 We find that the issuebefore us 1s directly related to the|issue decided by the Hon’ble|Karnataka High Court in the case|of Sisters of St. Anne (Supra) cited|by the assessee. In the said case,the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court|at paras 8 to 10 thereof has held|as under: - 5.3.3 Further,the CBDTCircular No.5-P (LXX)-6 of 1968|cited by the assessee makes it|clearthatincomeshouldbe|understood|in|Itscommercialsense : in the case of trusts also|andthereforethe|commercial principle|enunciatedby|the|Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in|the above referred case of Sisters|of St. Anne (supra) applies to|trusts as well. In view of the|factual and legal matrix of this|issue in the case on hand as| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 19/27 discussed above, we concur with|the decision of the learned CIT(Appeals)in|cancellingthe|disallowancemadeby|the|Assessing Officer and in allowing|theamortizationof|EXPENSES. |Consequently, Ground No.B (1 to|6) of the Revenue’s appeal forAssessment Year 2YOOS-O09 anGround No.C for Assessment Year|2009-10 are dismissed.” 17. In our opinion, the matter is squarelycovered by a decision of the cognate Benchof this Court in the case ofCIT vs. Soctetyof the Sisters of St. Anne (1984) 16|Taxman 400 (Kar.) and (1984) 146 ITR28,wherein the congnate Bench of thisCourt held that even the depreciation notinvolving any cash outflow is also in thecharacter of expenditure and therefore suchdepreciation is nothing but decrease in thevalue of property through wear and tear,deterioration:Orobsolescenceand.the|allowance made for that purpose in the Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 20/27 books of accounts were deemed to be theapplication offunds for the purpose of Sec.ll of the Act. The relevant portion of thesaid judgment is also quoted below forready reference: “11.IMF.Srinivasan,however, urged that there are|enough indications in Section 11|to exclude the mercantile systemof|accounting.Thelearnedcounselrelied|uponsections11(1)(a) and 11(4) in support of his|contention. We do not think that|there is anything in these sub-sections to support the contention|of Mr. Srinivasan. Explanation to |section I11(1)(a) on the contrarytakes note of the income notreceived in a particular year. Itlends support to the contention ofthe assessee that accounting neednot only be on cash basis. Section11(4) ts not intended to explain|how the accounts of the business|undertakingShouldbe Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 21/27 maintained. It is intended only to|bring to tax the excess income|computed under the provisions ofthe Act in respect of business|undertaking. 12.|The depreciation tf itt isnotallowedaS|necessarydeduction for computing theincome from the _ charitablinstitutions, then there is noway to preserve the corpus ofthetrustforderivingtheincome.The Board also appearsto hque understood the ‘income’|undersectionL1(1)in|itscommercial sense. The relevantportion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 19608,dated1] 9-6-196(SeeTaxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “WheretheCrust.derivesincomefromhouseproperty,interestOnsecurities,capitalgains, or other sources, the word| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 22/27 maintained. It is intended only to|bring to tax the excess income|computed under the provisions ofthe Act in respect of business|undertaking. 12.|The depreciation tf itt isnotallowedaS|necessarydeduction for computing theincome from the _ charitablinstitutions, then there is noway to preserve the corpus ofthetrustforderivingtheincome.The Board also appearsto hque understood the ‘income’|undersectionL1(1)in|itscommercial sense. The relevantportion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 19608,dated1] 9-6-196(SeeTaxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “WheretheCrust.derivesincomefromhouseproperty,interestOnsecurities,capitalgains, or other sources, the word| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 22/27 ‘Income’ should be understood in|its commercial sense, t1.e., bookincome, after adding back any|appropriationsOLrapplications|thereof towards the purposes ofthe trust or otherwise, and alsoafter adding back any _ debitmade.forcapitalexpenditureincurred for the purposes of the|trust or otherwise. It should be!noted, in this connection, that theamounts so added back willbecome chargeable to tax under'section 11(3) to the extent thattheyrepresentoutgoings|forpurposes other than those of the|trust. The amounts spent or|applied for the purposes of the|trust from out of the income,|computedIn|the|aforesaidmanner, should not be less than7O per cent of the latter, if the|trust is to get the full benefit of the|exemption under section 11(1).” Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 23/27 13. In CIT v. Trustee of H.E.H. TheNizam’sSupplementalReligious Endowment Trust (1981) 127 ITR 378, the Andhra Pradesh| High Court has accepted _ thaccounts maintained in respect ofthe trust in conformity with the|principles of accountancy for the|DUrposes of|determining|the|income derived from the property|held in trust.” 1&. In view of the aforesaid findings|of the learned Tribunal, allowing anyexpenditure of the earlier year which hasbeen brought forward and set off in the yearunder consideration, is a Justified finding offact based on the correct interpretation oflaw and the judgment relied upon by itrendered by the cognate Bench. Therefore,the same does not call for interference. Asimilar view was also taken by the DivisionBenchof|BombayHighCourtinCommissioner of Income-tax v. Institute|of Banking (2003) 264 ITR 110,wherein Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 24/27 the Division Bench of Bombay High Courtheld that the income derived from the trustproperty has also got to be computed oncommercial principles and tf commercialprinciples are applied, then adjustment ofexpenses incurred by the trust for charitableand religious purposes in the earlier yearsagainst the income earned by the trust inthe subsequent year will have to beregarded as application of income of thetrust for charitable and religious purposes inthe subsequent year. The relevant portionof the said judgment of Bombay High Courtis also quoted below for ready reference: | “Normal depreciation can beconsideredas|FTlegitimatededuction in computing the real|income of the assessee ongeneral principles or under section|l1(1})(a) of the Inome-tax Act,1961. Income of a charitable trust|derived from building, plant and|machinery and furniture is liableto be computed in a _ normacommercial manner although the| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 25/27 trust may not be carrying on any|businessand|theassetsin|respect whereof depreciation 1s| “Normal depreciation can beconsideredas|FTlegitimatededuction in computing the real|income of the assessee ongeneral principles or under section|l1(1})(a) of the Inome-tax Act,1961. Income of a charitable trust|derived from building, plant and|machinery and furniture is liableto be computed in a _ normacommercial manner although the| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 25/27 trust may not be carrying on any|businessand|theassetsin|respect whereof depreciation 1s| claimed may not be_ businessassets. In all such cases, section|OD?of|the|Actprovidingfordepreciation, for computation of|income derived from business or|profession1S|not.applicable.However, the income of the trustis required to be computed under|section.IT]Oncommercialprinciplesafterprovidingforallowance for normal depreciation|and deduction thereof from the|gross income of the trust.Income derived from thetrust property has also got to be|computedOncommercialprinciplesand|uycommercialprinciplesareapplied,thenadjustment of expenses incurred|by the trust for charitable and|religious purposes in the earlier| Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 26/27 years against the income earned|by the trust in the subsequent|year will have to be regarded as|application of income of the trust|forcharitableandreligiouspurposes in the subsequent year|in which adjustment had been|made.havingregardtothebenevolent provisions contained in|section 11 of the Act and such|adjustmentwillhavetobe.excluded from the income of the|trust under section 11(1)(a).” 5S. since all the proposed questions are covered by the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, we donot think that any substantial questions of law arisesfor our further consideration in the present appealfiled by the Revenue and therefore, the presentappeal isdismissed_No costs. Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 27/27 Copy of this order be sent to the Respondent-Assessee forthwith. Sd/-.JUDGESd/-.JUDGEPB Copy of this order be sent to the Respondent-