The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Shree Gajanan Maharaj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
[Citation -2020-LL-0123-63]

Citation 2020-LL-0123-63
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)
Respondent Name Shree Gajanan Maharaj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/01/2020
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags application of income • depreciation claim • double deduction
Bot Summary: Heard Mr.Sham Walve, learned standing counsel revenue for the appellant. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench A , Pune in ITA No.1442/PN/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant has proposed the following question as substantial question of law in this appeal : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon ble Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs.76,97,220/- when the assets on which depreciation was claimed were acquired out of application of income and allowing of depreciation would amount to double deduction 4. Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel fairly submits that the above question framed has been answered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Rajasthan Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona, 402 ITR 441 against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of the above, the question proposed does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.


Sonali Kilaje 23-ITXA-1992-17.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1992 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Appellant v/s. Shree Gajanan Maharaj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .. Respondent Mr. Sham Walve a/w. Mr. Pritesh Chatterjee for Appellant. Mr. Ravindra Poojary for Respondent. CORAM: UJJAL BHUYAN, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2020. P. C.:- . Heard Mr.Sham Walve, learned standing counsel revenue for appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by revenue against order dated 17.05.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench , Pune in ITA No.1442/PN/2014 for assessment year 2009-10. 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:10:35 ::: Sonali Kilaje 23-ITXA-1992-17.doc 3. appellant has proposed following question as substantial question of law in this appeal : Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble Tribunal was justified in allowing claim of depreciation of Rs.76,97,220/- when assets on which depreciation was claimed were acquired out of application of income and allowing of depreciation would amount to double deduction? 4. Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel fairly submits that above question framed has been answered by Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona, 402 ITR 441 against revenue and in favour of assessee. 5. In view of above, question proposed does not arise out of order of Tribunal. 6. Consequently appeal is dismissed. No cost. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN,J.) 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:10:35 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Shree Gajanan Maharaj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Report Error