DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD V. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KANPUR

ITA 1655/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Kanpur Development Authority (KDA), which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -II Kanpur, which had partly allowed their appeal against the additions made by the AO. The additions pertained to surplus from commercial activities, infrastructure development funds, and disallowed depreciation. The KDA argued that their activities were charitable and thus exempt under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the income being taxable post-2002-03 due to the omission of section 10(20A). The Tribunal examined the legal provisions, the nature of KDA's activities, and relevant judicial decisions, ultimately agreeing with the Ld. CIT(A) that the KDA's activities were charitable and the funds in question were not taxable as they were not under the control of the KDA but were to be used as directed by the State Government.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 27315 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT (Exemption) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, ACIT, Circle -2(2) (1) vs M/s Firozabad Shikohabad Development Authority, ITO vs. Saharanpur Development Authority, Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Saraswati Gyan Mandir Shiksha Sansthan, CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE; DAYAINDER SINGH SINDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Depreciation; Capital expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 142(1); 11; 12; 10; 264; 10B

Judgement Text

" THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH C: DELHI BEFORESHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1655/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Exemption circle Ghaziabad Vs. Kanpur Development Authority 1st Floor, KDA Building Bennajhabar Road, Motijheel, Kanpur PAN No. AAALK0324M (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The revenuepreferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income tax ( Appeals ) -II Kanpur (in short “CIT(A)”)pertaining to Assessment Department by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sindhu CIT, DR Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta Advocate Date of hearing 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.03.2025 year 2014-15 and arises out of the order dated 30.12.2016passed under Section143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”). 2. The revenue has raised the following ground of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.157,72,14,688/- made by the AO against surplus raised through commercial activities. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the additions of Rs.74,65,69,311/- made by the AO against infrastructure development fund without being credited to Income and Expenditure account. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the depreciation of Rs.1,69,33,620/- made by the AO while capital expenditure on fixed assets have been allowed in respective years. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an authority, notified under by the Government of Uttar Pradesh u/s. 4 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning (Development and Registration) Act 1973 meant to promote and secure the development of the development area according to plan and for that purpose the Authority shall have the power to acquire, hold manage and dispose of land and other property, to carry out building, engineering mining and other operation, to execute works in connection with supply of water andelectricity, to dispose of sewage and to provide and maintain other services and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for purpose of such development and for purpose incidental thereto. The assessee enjoyed exemption u/s. 10 (20A) of the Act, upto the Assessment year 2002-03, since w.e.f. 01.04.2023, the aforesaid provision got omitted from the statute resulting in the taxability of its income from thereon. 4. The assessee has filed return of income on 30-09-2013 declaring total income Nil. During the year the assessee declared profit of Rs 157,72,14,688/- on total income /gross receipt of Rs 393,47,55,385/- which was claimed exempt as per provision of section 11 and 12 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act with questionnaire was issued. In the compliance of the notice the Authorized representative attended the proceedings. The A.O has observed that the assessee is not a charitable entity and completed the assessment by making the following additions. (i). Addition on account of credited infrastructure Development fund Rs 74,65,69,311/- (ii). Addition on account of depreciation added back Rs 1,69,33,620/-. 5. Aggrieved the order of the ld. Assessing Officer the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 04-12-2017 partly allowed the appeal, against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. DR has relied the order of the Assessing officer. He has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition made by the AO. The revenue has raised the issue that activities of the assessee are hit by the provision of the section 2(15) of the Act and the activities of the assessee are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and are not eligible for exemption u/s 11&12 of the Act. The infrastructure funds are taxable in the hand of the assessee. 7. The learned counsel for assessee has submitted that the assessee has been setup for achieving essential public services and the object of the assessee are essential for advancement of public purpose and therefore, the activities undertaken by the assessee are not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Reliance has placed the case of ACIT (Exemption) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 449 ITR1 (SC). 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also submitted that Infrastructure funds are received by the assessee under the order of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the assessee was required to use such funds as per the directions of the high-powered committee having constituted by State Government and the assessee has no control over the said funds and therefore said funds cannot be treated as taxable in the hands of the assessee. He has also submitted that in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona Civil Appeal No. 7186/2014 dated the Hon’ble High Court held that the amendment of section 11(6) of the Act is prospective and therefore applicable from A.Y. 2015-16. Ld counsel for assessee prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Reliance have placed on the following decisions: (i) ACIT, Circle -2(2) (1) vs M/s Firozabad Shikohabad Development Authority ITA no. 270/Agra/2016 dated 25- 01-2018 (ii) ITO vs. Saharanpur Development Authority ITA No. 4113/Del/2017 dated 24-03-2021 (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar [2013] 38 taxmann.com.246 (Allahabad) (iv) Ld CIT(A) has observed in his order as under: “After considering the matter from all angles, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (supra) held that what is important is whether the predominant object of the activity involved in carrying out the object of general public utility or is to subserve the charitable purpose or to earn profit. It is not required that the activity must be carried on in such a manner that it does not result in any profit. If the profits are earned then they must necessarily feed a charitable purpose under the terms of the trust, the mere fact that the activities of the trust yield profit will not alter the charitable character of the trust. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the above cases, I have examined the objects and activities of the assessee. From the perusal, I find that the activities of the appellant are to frame and execute the housing and improvement schemes and other projects; to plan and coordinate various housing activities in the State and to ensure expeditious and efficient implementation of housing and improvement schemes in the State. Activities like ManyavarKansiram Urban Poor Housing Scheme wherein it is instructed that KDA shall add NIL Land cost to the costing; sale of the scheme notified by GO No. 972/AATH-2-2011-2475/08TC-1 dated 09.04.2011; KDA Board's approval of reducing the cost of WES houses by reducing the cost of land of such houses by 40% and by not charging any overhead charges in the costing of the houses except for 2% for contingency; or chart showing costing of EWS houses in Shatabdi Nagar Scheme wherein it can be clearly seen that KDA has given a reduction in Land Cost and not added any overhead Charges so as to make the houses affordable for the rural poor; or act of not adding any overhead charges and further reducing the cost of the houses by a further 10% all these activities show that KDA is spending more than cost, on account of meeting its objectives for weaker section of society. These all activities are nothing but purely charitable in nature. Another major \"charitable activity \"of Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) is the providing development of the town of Kanpur through various development of Naveen Market and construction of multi-level parking at parade as infrastructure, providing public amenities like Multi-Level parking at various places in Kanpur, preservation-of Ganga River Bank, beautification of parks etc. I have also perused the UPUPD Act, 1973. Section 4 of the said Act provides that State Government may, by notification in the Gazette constitute for the purposes of this Act, an Authority to be called the Development Authority for any development area. The Kanpur Development Authority has been constituted by the Government under this section. Section 17(1) of this Act provides as under: \"If in the opinion of State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development or for any other purposes under this Act, the State Government may acquire such land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.\" It is clear that as per clause 4 of Land Acquisition Act, the land could be acquired only for public purposes. Section 57 of the said Act also provides that Authorities could make its bye-laws with the approval of the State Government. Section 58 provides that in case of dissolution of the Authority, all the properties, funds and dues which are vested in or realizable by the Authority, shall vest in or to be realizable by the State Government. Various sections of the said Act make it abundantly clear that the activities of the Authorities were aimed at public purposes and not personal one. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature and are for advancement of general public utility. It is therefore clear that KDA fully qualifies the test laid down by the apex court and the jurisdictional high court in as much as there is obligation that the properties of the authority will be utilised only for the purpose for which the authority was set up. The AO has incorrectly chosen to interpret applicability of proviso of S. 2(15) of the IT Act otherwise without considering the complete facts and only influenced by profit being made from all these activities and not considering the nature of activities. In view of the above factual and legal proposition laid down by jurisdictional high court and the apex court, addition made by AO is deleted. These grounds are allowed. Ground No. 5 & 6 relates to making addition of Rs. 74,65,69,311/- by holding that the amount earmarked for Infrastructure Fund is taxable income. In the assessment order, the AO has stated as under: \"4. Infrastructure Development fund: it was found that an amount of Rs.74,65,69,311/- was directly credited to infrastructure development fund without being credited to Income and expenditure account hence the amount is added back. (Additions of Rs. 74,65,69,311/-) During the appellate proceedings the AR has filed written submission as under:-The premises on which addition has been made, has been laid down by the Assessing Officer on page 5 of the assessment order and reads as hereunder: \"On the Perusal of Income & Expenditure Account read with annexure B out of the total receipts only a fixed portion is credited to Income & Expenditure account the details being as under :- Head of Receipt Credited to Income and Exp. Account Total receipts Short credited in Income Expenditure (directly credited to infrastructure development fund) Conversion of land use 1,17,44,258.00 1,05,69,832.20 11,74,425.80 Betterment & registration 1,63,06,390.00 1,46,75,751.00 16,30,639.00 Compounding 5,25,66,441.00 2,62,83,220.50 2,62,83,220.50 Income from Stamp Duty 21,59,42,368.00 19,43,49,131.20 2,15,94,236.80 Freehold 2,16,87,260.00 1,95,18,533.94 21,68,726.06 Charges Development Fee 49,24,40,032.00 44,31,96,028.075 4,92,44,003.25 Total 10,63,15,008.51 85,28,84,320.00 74,65,69,311.49 On the basis of the aforesaid chart the assessing officer proceeds to arrive at the assessed income by adding the amount shown in column 4 of the above chart against the item of addition. Before going into the reasons for this erroneous addition, without prejudice to whatever is being submitted, it is most humbly pointed out that even the very chart prepared included in the assessment order has been wrongly drafted without application of mind. The correct position behind the logic taken by the assessing officer should have been as follows as is demonstrated in the redrafted chart: Head of Receipts Gross amount under each head or total receipts Credited directly to Balance sheet as infrastructure fund in accordance with GO Credited to income and expenditure account in accordance with GO Conversion 1,17,44,258.00 1,05,69,832.20 11,74,425.80 of land use Betterment and registration 1,63,06,390.00 1,46,75,751.00 16,30,639.00 Compoundi ng Fee 5,25,66,441.00 2,62,83,220.50 2,62,83,220.50 Income from Stamp duty 21,59,42,368.00 19,43,48,131.20 2,15,94,236.80 Developed Fee 49,24,40,032.00 44,31,96,028.75 4,92,44.003.025 Total 81,06,86,749.00 70,85,91,497.59.00 10,20,95,251.49 On comparison of both the charts it will be noted that besides the components of Infrastructure fund having been wrongly identified in the assessment order even the TOTALS of the columns were wrong. Only on this basis of this patent mistake the impugned assessment order needs to be set aside and the addition deleted. Regarding this addition on account of Infrastructure Fund, the appellant begs to draw your honours attention to the G.O.152/E-0-1-1998 dt. 15.01.1998 on the basis of which the transfers have been made to the infrastructure fund. A copy of the GO been submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. From the said G.O. and the documents attached thereto, it would be seen that the receipts represent collection made on behalf of the government, for being utilised for the specified purposes. The appellant itself did not have any right, title or interest to such receipts nor it has even the discretion to apply such receipts for attainment of the objects for which ADA had been notified. During the year under consideration, there were credits for sums aggregating Rs. 70,85,91,497.59/- under the head \"Infrastructure fund\" which the \"appellant authority\" had taken directly to the Balance Sheet, after transferring from various accounts. The said fund is in the process of being created as per the Government order and the same was liable to be utilized in the manner laid down in the related Government order itself. In other words, it was to be utilized only for the purposes as spelt out and specified by the State Government and the \"appellant authority\" has merely acted as \"nodal agency\", having no right, title or interest of its own in the said 'Fund'. It is also relevant to mention here that 'infrastructure fund is being utilised as per instructions of the State Government and it is for this reason that balance in the said account as on 31.3.2014 got increased to Rs. 1,76,86,50,200.17/- and it kept on fluctuating as per the instructions of the State Government. In fact, in relation to infrastructure fund the status of KDA is that of a mere nodal agency. Looking to the nature of receipts, it is stated that the appellant had never acquired any right, title or interest therein of its own, therein. The receipts stood diverted from source. However, the ground on which the disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer, is that these receipts cannot be allowed exemption under section 11(1)(d) as benefit of exemption under section 11 itself was being denied to the appellant. In this background the appellant's submissions are twofold vs. a) Firstly, denial of exemption under section 11, is based on misconception and the same deserves to be allowed keeping in view the submissions made in paras herein fore; and b) irrespective of firstly, the receipts in question never belonged to the appellant as the same stood diverted at source thereof, therefore decision of Delhi Bench of Hon'ble ITAT in case of Saharanpur Development as has been discussed in para herein forth is squarely applicable. Decision: I have perused the facts of the case, contention of AO and submissions made by the appellant. AO has made the addition by a very cryptic and non-speaking order without mentioning anything about the issue involved, facts of the matter or any legal and accounting provision under which the same has been added. Appellant has tried to bring to my knowledge the inference drawn from the assessment order, pointing the para that might be relevant for the basis of this addition. A perusal of the para shows that AO has in fact calculated sum in every column, incorrectly. In fact if it is presumed that the table made by AO is correct then appellant has in fact credited more in P&L Account and not less. Secondly even if it is to be held that the accretion to his fund namely Infrastructure fund received can be added to the income of the assessee then also the same shall be free of taxation because of the fact that appellant enjoys the exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act. Without getting into the merits of the case and submissions of the appellant, this addition is deleted for the reason that it is made without any basis, by passing a non-speaking order. This ground is allowed. Ground No. 7 - Disallowance of Depreciation of Rs.1,69,33,620/-: In the assessment order, the AO has stated as under: \"5. Depreciation: The Assessee has claimed deprecation of Rs.1,69,33,620,25 on account of application of income for charitable purposes which is not allowable as the capital expenditure on acquiring fixed assets has already been allowed in the respective years. During the appellate proceedings the AR has filed written submission as under:- An amount of Rs. 1,69,33,620.25 has been added on account of disallowing depreciation as the investments in fixed assets has already being claimed as application of Income in earlier years. In this regard as already has been discussed and submitted herein above KDA filed its return in Form 10B after claim exemption under section 11 of the Act, after balancing the receipts with the utilization thereof and the same is fully supported by the audit report in Form 108 that was available on record. It has also been discussed herein above that KDA is NOT a commercial entity and its registration U/s 12AA remained intact and continued to be in force, even on today. Further it has been submitted applicability and scope of proviso to section 2(15) as had been inserted by the Finance Act 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.2009 will not apply to KDA. KDA filed its return claiming the benefits U/s 11 and while computing the receipts and the utilisation thereof did not claim Depreciation of Assets as a utilization as is evident from the computation U/s 11 available on record. It may be pointed out that in the last few years assessments KDA has not been allowed the benefit U/s. 11. All these assessments are under various stages of litigation before authorities. Without prejudice to KDA's claim to the benefits U/s. 11 it is most humbly submitted that this addition of Rs. 1,69,33,620.25 was not called for as the same has been made on the basis of assumptions and even that on holding that KDA is a commercial entity (which by no dint of imagination it is not) this addition should not have been made and should not have been added at the time of framing the assessment order so that the disputed high pitched demand would have been reduced. Decision: The A.O has denied the claim of depreciation holding that assessee is enjoying exemption u/s 11 since inception and the assets was created out of exempt Income and thus claiming depreciation on such assets which was acquired from exempted income is amount to double deduction. Claim made for depreciation is for use of the assets while claim of capital outgo as an application is on a different footing, just because capital expenditure was considered as application of income, it could not be said that the assessee would not be entitle to claim of depreciation thereon. The Hon'ble High Court Calcutta Bench in the case of CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee has also held that prior to 1-4-2015 depreciation was to be allowed on assets acquired by the trust even though cost of same has already been treated as application of income for charitable purpose. The Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Saraswati Gyan Mandir Shiksha Sansthan reported in [2014] 50 taxmann.com 203 (Lucknow -Trib.) held that allowing exemption under s. 11 is not equal to allowing deduction. Allowing exemption means that the income is not liable to tax but the income remains the same and it does not get reduced, although such income is not taxable because of the operation of s. 11(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Section [2003] 264 ITR 110/131 Taxman 386 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has clearly held that depreciation is allowable on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income u/s.11 in past years. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed its earlier decision in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. FramjeeCawasjee Institute [2014] 227 Taxman 266/49 taxmann.com 22. In the said decision, it was held that depreciation on depreciable assets had to be taken into account in computing the income of Trust although the amount spent on acquiring such assets had been treated as application of income of the Trust in the year in which such assets were acquired. The Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the case of Parkar Medical Foundation v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri reported in [2015] 55 taxmann.com 268 (Pune - Trib.) has also affirmed the view taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court and held that assessee is entitled to depreciation on assets entire amount of which has been claimed as deduction on account of application for charitable purposes. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur vs. Krishi UpajMandiSamiti reported in [2015] 55 taxmann.com 63 (Rajasthan) held that income of a charitable trust like the present assessee derived from the depreciable heads is also liable to be computed on commercial basis, however, while doing so it is to be kept in mind that ultimately assessee is a charitable institution and its income for tax purposes is required to be determined by sions of Section 11 of the Act of 1961 after taking into consideration provisions extending normal depreciation and deductions from its gross income. In computing the income of a charitable institution/trust depreciation of assets owned by such institution is a necessary deduction on commercial principles, hence, the amount of depreciation has to be deducted to arrive at the income available. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) reported in [2003] 131 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 386 (BOM.) has held that in the case of a Charitable Trust, there Income and thus claiming depreciation on such assets which was acquired from exempted income is amount to double deduction. Claim made for depreciation is for use of the assets while claim of capital outgo as an application is on a different footing, just because capital expenditure was considered as application of income, it could not be said that the assessee would not be entitle to claim of depreciation thereon. The Hon'ble High Court Calcutta Bench In the case of CIT vs. Siliguri Regulated Market Committee has also held that prior to 1-4-2015 depreciation was to be allowed on assets acquired by the trust even though cost of same has already been treated as application of income for charitable purpose. The Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Saraswati Gyan Mandir Shiksha Sansthan reported in [2014] 50 taxmann.com 203 (Lucknow Trib.) held that allowing exemption under s. 11 is not equal to allowing deduction. Allowing exemption means that the income is not liable to tax but the income remains the same and It does not get reduced, although such income is not taxable because of the operation of s. 11(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Section [2003] 264 ITR 110/131 Taxman 386 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has clearly held that depreciation is allowable on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income u/s.11 in past years. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed its earlier decision in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. FramjeeCawasjee Institute [2014] 227 Taxman 266/49 taxmann.com 22. In the sald decision, it was held that depreciation on depreciable assets had to be taken into account in computing the income of Trust although the amount spent on acquiring such assets had been treated as application of income of the Trust in the year in which such assets were acquired. The Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the case of Parkar Medical Foundation v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri reported in [2015] 55 taxmann.com 268 (Pune Trib.) has also affirmed the view taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court and held that assessee is entitled to depreciation on assets entire amount of which has been claimed as deduction on account of application for charitable purposes. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur vs. Krishi UpajMandiSamiti reported in [2015] 55 taxmann.com 63 (Rajasthan) held that Income of a charitable trust like the present assessee derived from the depreciable heads is also liable to be computed on commercial basis, however, while doing so it is to be kept in mind that ultimately assessee is a charitable Institution and its income for tax purposes is required to be determined by taking into consideration provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1961 after extending normal depreciation and deductions from its gross income. In computing the income of a charitable institution/trust depreciation of assets owned by such institution is a necessary deduction on commercial principles, hence, the amount of depreciation has to be deducted to arrive at the income available. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) reported in [2003] 131 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 386 (BOM.) has held that in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry forward of the excess of expenditure of earlier years to be adjusted against income of subsequent years. Income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied then adjustment of expenses incurred by the Trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the Income earned by the Trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the Trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in section 11 of the Act and that such adjustment will have to be excluded from the income of the Trust under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The amended provision of section 11(6) of the I.T Act, which has been inserted w.e.f 1-4-2015 which is explanatory and clarificatory in nature. The provision is applicable from A.Y 2015-16 onwards. Respectfully fallowing the above decisions, I am of the view of the view that since in the present case, exemption is allowed at the time of user of assets, It does not amount to double deduction and thus A.O Is directed to allow the claim of depreciation. This ground is allowed. Ground No. 8 Holding That No Profit Has Been Shown By The Assessee On Sale Of Properties: Since no addition has been made on this ground in the assessment order AR did not press this ground as being academic. Hence this ground is dismissed as not pressed. Grounds no 9 to 11 are general. Appeal is partly allowed.” 9. We have heard the parties and gone through the material available on record. 10. The Ld CIT(A) has examined the issues in the correct prospective and rightly deleted the additions made by the A.O. The reasoning and findings of the Ld. CIT(A) granting relief is on proper appreciation of law expounded by the judicial dicta. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Dated:12 March,2025. “Neha, Sr. PS” Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra "