The Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. M/s. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council
[Citation -2015-LL-0401-12]

Citation 2015-LL-0401-12
Appellant Name The Director of Income-tax (Exemptions)
Respondent Name M/s. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 01/04/2015
Assessment Year 2008-09
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags capital expenditure • export promotion
Bot Summary: This appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai, dated 19th December, 2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. It held that the difference between application of income for acquiring an asset and the claim for depreciation which is in relation to the use or application of the asset for achieving the stated object or purpose has to borne in mind. If it is borne in mind there is no question of double deduction as is apprehended in such matters by the Revenue. Ig In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has followed the view H taken by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, 264 ITR 110. The Revenue's appeal has been dismissed following a Division Bench judgment. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider similar questions. The Division Benches of this Court have consistently held that the rt Revenue's understanding of double deduction is without legal basis.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2013 Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) .. Appellant Vs M/s. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council ... Respondent Mr. A.R. Malhotra with Mr. N.A. Kazi for Appellant. Mr. Kunal Vajani with Mr. Kunal Vaishnav i/b M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & A.K. MENON, JJ. WEDNESDAY, 1ST APRIL, 2015 P.C. : 1. This appeal of Revenue challenges order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai, dated 19th December, 2012 for assessment year 2008-09. B 2. allowability of depreciation in respect of capital expenditure incurred by assessee-trust and for purpose of SRP section 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961, was issue before Tribunal. It held that difference between application of income for acquiring asset and claim for depreciation which is in relation to use or application of asset for achieving stated object or purpose has to borne in mind. If it is borne in mind, then, there is no question of double deduction as is apprehended in such matters by Revenue. h 3. ig In reaching this conclusion, Tribunal has followed view H taken by this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, (2003) 264 ITR 110. y ba 4. Revenue's appeal has been dismissed following Division Bench judgment. om 5. Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider similar questions (ITXA No.797 of 2012 decided on 26 th September, 2014, B Bench comprising of S.C. Dharmadhikari & A.K. Menon, JJ. and later order of 20th November, 2014 in ITXA No.1305 of 2012 and 22 of SRP 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2016 15:25:10 ::: ITXA1311.13.doc 2013, Bench comprising of S.C. Dharmadhikari & A.A. Sayed, JJ). Division Benches of this Court have consistently held that rt Revenue's understanding of double deduction is without legal basis. ou In such circumstances, questions of law at pages 3 and 4 of paper-book cannot be entertained as they are covered by decisions C of this Court. h 6. appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ig H A.K. MENON, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI , J. y ba om B SRP 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2016 15:25:10 ::: Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. M/s. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council
Report Error