The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Market Committee, Assandh

ITA No. 253 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 253 of 2010Date of Decision: 29.7.2010 The Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Market Committee, Assandh ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 253 to 259 of 2010 asit is stated that identical questions are involved in all the appeals. 2.ITA No. 253 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated29.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench“F”, Delhi in ITA No. 2633/DEL/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06proposing to raise the following questions of law:- i)Whether on the facts, and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunalwas justified in holding that depreciation wasallowable on the capital asset, when deductionfor capital expenditure incurred for acquisitionof the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunalwas justified in holding that depreciation wasallowable on the capital asset, when deductionfor capital expenditure incurred for acquisition ii) iii) of these capital assets has already beenallowed as application of income of the trust?Whether the ITAT's decision to allow doublededuction on depreciation when capitalexpenditure on the asset has already beenallowed is justified in the light of the apexCourt's decision in Escorts Ltd. Vs. UOI (199ITR 43) to the effect that in the absence ofclear statutory indication to the contrary, thestatute should not be read as to permit anassessee two deductions on the sameexpenditure? Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified inrestoring the issue to the file of the AssessingOfficer to allow set off of brought forwardunabsorbed depreciation and losses of earlieryears, despite the fact that depreciation per seis not allowable on capital assets whendeduction for capital expenditure has alreadybeen allowed as application of income inearlier years and when the provisions ofsections 70 to 80 of the Income-tax Act havenot specifically provided for carry forward andset off of losses or unabsorbed depreciation inthe case of income assessed u/s 11 to 13 of the Act? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified indirecting the AO to consider the excessamount of application of income of previousyears to be adjusted in the current year,despite there being no provision in Section 11to 13 of the Act in this regard and despite thefact that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'bleRajasthan High Court in Maharana of MewarCharitable Foundation (164 ITR 439) is notapplicable to this jurisdiction? v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified inallowing payment of 30% of market feesearned by it paid to the Haryana AgricultureMarketing Board as application of income forcharitable purpose, despite the finding that30% of the market fee has to be paid to thesaid Board as a statutory obligation under theAgricultural Marketing Board Act, andtherefore, it is not application of income, but itis sharing of income by an overriding title asper the Act by which the Market Committee isgoverned?” Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the ITA No. 253 of 2010 matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated28.7.2010 in ITA No. 238 of 2010 (The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Market Committee, Karnal). 4.In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed. 5.A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 29, 2010gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE