The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Assandh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.810 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.2.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Market Committee, Assandh. -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counselfor the appellant. --- 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 in I.T.A. No.305/DEL/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07proposing following substantial questions of law:- “i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in restoring theissue to the file of the Assessing Officer to allow setoff of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation andlosses of earlier years, despite the fact thatdepreciation per se is not allowable on capital assetswhen deduction for capital expenditure has alreadybeen allowed as application of income in earlier yearsand when the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of the Income Tax Act have not specifically provided forcarry forward and set off of losses or unabsorbeddepreciation in the case of income assessed u/s 11 to13 of the Act? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in directing theAO to consider the excess amount of application ofincome of previous years to be adjusted in the currentyear, despite there being no provision in Section 11 to13 of the Act in this regard and despite the fact thatthe ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan HighCourt in Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation(164 ITR 439) is not applicable to this jurisdiction? iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasjustified in holding that depreciation was allowable onthe capital asset, when deduction for capitalexpenditure incurred for acquisition of these capitalassets has already been allowed as application ofincome of the trust?” Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that thematter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.238 of 2010 CITv. Market Committee,Karnaland other connected matters. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 23, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE