11. os itxa 1967-17.doc R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1967 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Exemption .. Appellant Versus M/s. Dawat-E-Hadiyah .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2020. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, revenue for appellant . 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) is directed against order dated 22.7.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench "J", Mumbai ("Tribunal" for short) in Income Tax Appeal No. 4333/M/2015 for assessment year 2009-10. 1 of 3 11. os itxa 1967-17.doc 3. Following two questions have been proposed as substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was erred in allowing assessee's appeal on account of disallowing depreciation in contravention of decision in case of Escorts Ltd. V/s UOI (199 ITR 43) wherein it was held that since Section 11 of Act provides for deduction of capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for objects of trust as application and does not specifically & expressly provide for double deduction on account of depreciation on same very assets acquired from such capital expenditure, no deduction shall be allowed u/S. 32 for same or any other previous year in respect of that assets as it amounts to claiming double deduction? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in allowing carry forward of deficit and allowing set off against income of subsequent years, allowing deficit will tantamount to double deduction on account of expenditure out of exempt income?" 4. Mr. Suresh Kumar very fairly submits that in so far question No. (i) is concerned, same has been answered in favour of assessee and against revenue by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) 1.. This finding has been affirmed by Supreme Court in Commissioner of 1 [2003] 131 Taxman 386 (Bombay) 2 of 3 11. os itxa 1967-17.doc Income Tax-III, Pune Vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona2. 5. In so far question No. (ii) is concerned, same is also concluded in favour of assessee and against revenue by Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi Vs. Subros Educational Society3. 6. As matter of fact, in appeals filed by revenue against present assessee for assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12 being Income Tax Appeal Nos. 741 and 755 of 2016, this Court had dismissed two appeals vide order dated 3.12.2018. 7. Following above, we hold that no substantial question of law arises from impugned order of Tribunal. Consequently, Appeal is dismissed but without any order as to cost. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] 2 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 (SC) 3 [2018] 7 SCC 548 Digitally signed 3 of 3 Ravindra by Ravindra M. Amberkar M. Date: Amberkar 2020.01.27 11:46:38 +0530 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-Exemption v. Dawat-E-Hadiyah