The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Narnaund

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.523 of 2010 & connected cases beingI.T.A. No.524, 525 & 529 of 2010Date of decision: 18.11.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Market Committee, Narnaund. -----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 order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.523 to 525 and529 of 2010 as common questions of law are involved in all theappeals. 2. I.T.A. No.523 of 2010 has been preferred by therevenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi dated 1.9.2009 in I.T.A. No.2814/Del/09 forthe assessment year 2006-07 proposing to raise followingsubstantial questions 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 tocase, the learned ITAT was justified in allowingpayment of 30% of Market fees earned by it paid to ii) iii) iv) the 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 incomeby an overriding title as per the Act by which theMarket Committee is governed? 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 thetrust? 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? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT was justified in restoring the issueto the file of the Assessing Officer to allow the set-offof B/F unabsorbed depreciation and losses of earlieryears, despite the fact that depreciation per se is notallowable on capital assets when deduction for capitalexpenditure has already been allowed as applicationof income in earlier years and when the provisions ofsections 70 to 80 of the Income Tax Act have notspecifically provided for carry forward and set off losses or unabsorbed depreciation in the case ofincome assessed u/s 11 to 13 of the Act?” 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) to (iv) 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 appeals are dismissed. 5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files ofeach connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 18, 2010ashwani (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE