Kamineni Education Society, Hyd, Hyderabad V. Jt. DIT, Exemptions, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1099/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98624 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITHARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Capital expenditure
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 32; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE : SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1099 & 1100/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD. PAN AAATK6305J VS. JOINT DIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM FOR REVENUE : MR. M. SITHARAM DATE OF HEARING : 23.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .10.2015 ORDER THESE TWO APPEALS ARE BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A)-9, HYDERABAD DATED 05.06.2015 ISSUED SEPARATELY FOR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE COMMON ISSUE I NVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIA TION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE R EASON THAT THE COST OF ASSETS HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME BY ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND THIS WOULD AMOU NT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD., VS. UOI 199 ITR 43 (SC ). 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT WHICH WAS GIVEN EX-PARTE IN ITA.NO.1585 & 1586/H/2012 FOR A.YS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS CONF IRMED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CLA IMED OF RS.5,65,79,476 FOR A.Y. 2011-2012 AND RS.6,55,38,16 3 FOR A.Y. 2012-13. 2 ITA.NO.1099 & 1100/HYD/2015 M/S. KAMINENI EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 3. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDERS OF ITAT R ELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT(A) WERE RE-CALLED BY WAY OF MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AND IN A.Y. 2010-2011 THE COORDINATE B ENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA.NO.939/HYD/2015 HAS CONS IDERED THE ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, R ELYING ON VARIOUS HIGH COURTS JUDGMENTS AND COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF A.P. OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD DATED 07.02.2014 IN ITA.NO.1272/HYD/2013. THE ORDER OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH IS AS UNDER : 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND EXAMINED THE ISSUE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AL L THE RECEIPTS IN INCOME-EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND CLAIMED VARIOUS E XPENSES IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WHILE DECLARING EXCESS O F INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 13. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLES GOVERN ING COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS M AY NOT APPLY TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE ABOVE PROVIS IONS, SINCE THE INCOME OF A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION HAS TO BE CO MPUTED UNDER ORDINARY PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTING, AND D EPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON DEPRECIABLE ASSETS HELD BY A C HARITABLE INSTITUTION TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME OF 75% (NOW 85% ) WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IN T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LT D. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE WHE REIN THE DEPRECIATION WAS ALSO CLAIMED ON AN ASSET WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION WHILE USING FOR RESEARCH, AS CAPITAL E XPENDITURE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. ON THOSE FACTS, THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT HELD THAT DEPRECIATION WAS INADMISSIBLE SINCE THE E NTIRE COST OF THE ASSET USED FOR RESEARCH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIO N. HOWEVER, THE SAME PRINCIPLE MAY NOT APPLY TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE TRUST. 8. THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LI SSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 344 (KE RALA), TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE C BDT IGNORING ITS OWN CIRCULAR 5-P (LXX-6) OF 1968 DATED 19.06.1968, OPINED THAT THERE COULD BE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE AND GENERATION OF BLACK MONEY, 3 ITA.NO.1099 & 1100/HYD/2015 M/S. KAMINENI EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYDERABAD IF DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED. THUS, THE HONBLE KERA LA HIGH COURT GAVE DECISION IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO RE-DRAW THE ACCOUNTS. 9. THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELIED ON, I.E., IN THE CASE OF SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA), HOWEVER, DID NOT DECID E THE ISSUE BUT RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO EXAM INE; WHETHER ASSETS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPTION IN EARLIER YE ARS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED. HOWEVER, IN A LATER ORDER BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF ADIT (EXEMPTION)-I VS. ROYAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IN ITA. NO. 1378/HYD/2011 DATED 28.06.2012 HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. THE COORDINATE BENCH RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANAV MAN GAL SOCIETY 328 ITR 421 (P&H) (HC) AND CIT VS. MARKET COMMITTEE , PIPLI (2011) 330 ITR 16, IN ARRIVING AT THAT DECISION. TH US, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE ABOVE ISSUE AT THAT PO INT OF TIME. 10. THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY 328 ITR 421 (P &H) (HC) HAS CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATIO N. THE AMOUNT SPENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL BUILDIN G AT PANCHKULA IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BUT FOR THE PURP OSE OF SECTION 11 IT IS AN OUTGOING EXPENDITURE WHICH IS A PPLICATION OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOS E. THE APPELLANT SHALL ALSO BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIAT ION ON THE SCHOOL BUILDING. 11. THIS DECISION WAS FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TINY TOTS EDUCATION SOCIETY (2011) 330 ITR 21 BY THE HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. 12. THIS ISSUE HAS ELABORATELY BEEN DISCUSSED BY T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. VIS HWA JAGRITI MISSION IN ITA.NO. 140/2012 DATED 29.03.2012 AND TO OK A OVER VIEW OF THE EXISTING DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE WHILE H OLDING AS UNDER: 11. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAI D ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT THE A PPEAL AND FRAME ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW SINCE NONE AR ISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA VI DE ORDER 4 ITA.NO.1099 & 1100/HYD/2015 M/S. KAMINENI EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYDERABAD DATED 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS E NTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME UNDER SECTION 11. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE COMPUT ED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND IN DOING SO WHETHER DEPRE CIATION ON FIXED ASSETS UTILISED FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES S HOULD BE ALLOWED. ON THIS ISSUE, THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONSENS US OF JUDICIAL THINKING AS IS SEEN FROM THE AUTHORITIES R ELIED UPON BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. IN CIT VS . THE SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF ST. ANME (SUPRA), AN IDENTICAL QU ESTION AROSE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. THERE THE SOCIETY WAS RUNNING A SCHOOL IN BANGALORE AND WAS ALLOWED EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 11. THE QUESTION AROSE AS TO HOW THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE AND RELIGIO US PURPOSES SHOULD BE COMPUTED. JAGANNATHA SETTY, J. SPEAKING F OR THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE COURT HELD THAT INCOME DERIVE D FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST CANNOT BE THE 'TOTAL INCO ME' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(45) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE WO RD 'INCOME' IS A WIDER TERM THAN THE EXPRESSION 'PROFITS AND GA INS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION'. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE NATURE OF DEPRECIATION AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DEPRECIATI ON WAS NOTHING BUT DECREASE IN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY THROU GH WEAR, DETERIORATION OR OBSOLESCENCE. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT DEPRECIATION, IF NOT ALLOWED AS A NECESSARY DEDUCTI ON FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, TH EN THERE IS NO WAY TO PRESERVE THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST FOR DERIVIN G THE INCOME. THE CIRCULAR NO.5-P (LXX-6) OF 1968, DATED JULY 19, 1968 WAS REPRODUCED IN THE JUDGMENT IN WHICH THE BOARD HAS T AKEN THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME OF THE TRUST SHOULD BE UNDERST OOD IN ITS COMMERCIAL SENSE. THE CIRCULAR IS AS UNDER:- 'WHERE THE TRUST DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , INTEREST ON SECURITIES, CAPITAL GAINS, OR OTHER SOU RCES, THE WORD 'INCOME' SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN ITS COMMERCIA L SENSE, I.E., BOOK INCOME, AFTER ADDING BACK ANY APPROPRIAT IONS OR APPLICATIONS THEREOF TOWARDS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRU ST OR OTHERWISE, AND ALSO AFTER ADDING BACK ANY DEBITS MA DE FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF TH E TRUST OR OTHERWISE. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, IN THIS CONNECTION, THAT THE AMOUNTS SO ADDED BACK WILL BECOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S. 11(3) TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY REPRESENT OUTGOINGS F OR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE OF THE TRUST. THE AMOUNTS SPENT OR APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST FROM OUT O F THE INCOME COMPUTED IN THE AFORESAID MANNER, SHOULD BE NOT LESS THAN 75 PER CENT. OF THE LATTER, IF THE TRUST IS TO GET THE FULL BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION U/S. 11(1).' 5 ITA.NO.1099 & 1100/HYD/2015 M/S. KAMINENI EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 12. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS EARLIER EXPRESSED BY THE AN DHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. V . NIZAM'S SUPPL. RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT TRUST (1981) 127 ITR 378 AND BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RAO BAHADUR CALAVALA CUNNAN CHETTY CHARITIES (1982) 135 ITR 485. THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RAIPU R PALLOTTINE SOCIETY (SUPRA) HAS HELD, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CITED ABOVE, THAT IN COMPU TING THE INCOME OF A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION/TRUST, DEPRECIAT ION OF ASSETS OWNED BY THE TRUST/INSTITUTION IS A NECESSARY DEDUC TION ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AFTE R REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENTS OF THE KARNATAKA, MAHARASHTRA AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTS CITED ABOVE, ALSO CAME TO THE S AME CONCLUSION AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION HAS TO B E DEDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO C HARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 13. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS L IMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) HAS BEEN RIGHTLY HELD TO BE INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THERE ARE TWO REASONS AS TO WH Y THE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE. FIR STLY, THE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE CASE OF A CHARITABLE TRUST/INSTITUTION INVOLVING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ITS INCOME SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF INCO ME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IT WAS A CA SE WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND THE STATUTORY COMPUTATION PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER IV-D OF THE ACT W ERE APPLICABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE NOT CONCERN ED WITH THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE PROVISIONS. WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE CONCEPT OF COMMERCIAL INCOME AS UNDERSTOOD FROM THE ACCOUNTING POINT OF VIEW. EVEN UNDER NORMAL COMMERC IAL ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, THERE IS AUTHORITY FOR THE P ROPOSITION THAT DEPRECIATION IS A NECESSARY CHARGE IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME. SECONDLY, THE SUPREME COURT WAS CONCERNED W ITH THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF TH E COST OF THE ASSET UNDER SECTION 35(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH ALL OWED DEDUCTION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SCIEN TIFIC RESEARCH. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER AFTER CLAIMING D EDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF THE ASSET UNDER SECTION 3 5(1), CAN THE ASSESSEE AGAIN CLAIM DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPREC IATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSET. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT, UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION, DOUBLE DEDUCT ION IN REGARD TO THE SAME BUSINESS OUTGOING IS NOT INTENDE D UNLESS CLEARLY EXPRESSED. THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT ONE OF T HIS TYPE, AS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 6 ITA.NO.1099 & 1100/HYD/2015 M/S. KAMINENI EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 14. HAVING REGARD TO THE CONSENSUS OF JUDICIAL OPI NION ON THE PRECISE QUESTION THAT HAS ARISEN IN THE PRESENT APP EAL, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND FRAME ANY SUBS TANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY CO NTRARY VIEW PLAUSIBLE ON THE QUESTION RAISED BEFORE US AND AT ANY RATE NO JUDGMENT TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW HAS BEEN BR OUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DECLINE TO ADM IT THE PRESENT APPEAL AND DISMISS THE SAME WITH NO ORDER A S TO COSTS. 13. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST (2013) 31 TAXMANN. COM 157 (BANGALORE TRIB.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT CHARIT ABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A CAN CL AIM BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 IN THE FORM OF APPLICATION OF FUND S AS WELL AS DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 IN RESPECT OF PROPERT Y HELD UNDER THE TRUST. THE SAME OPINION WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ITA T, BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DDIT(E), BANGALORE VS. CUT CHI MEMON UNION (2013) 38 TAXMAN.COM 276 (BANGALORE-TRIB.) WH EREIN ALSO SIMILAR OPINION WAS EXPRESSED. 14. THUS, ON THIS ISSUE, THERE ARE DECISIONS OF HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, KERA LA HIGH COURT, BOMBAY HIGH COURT, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH C OURT AND DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS , THERE IS ONLY A LONE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT AGAINS T THE ABOVE OPINION CONFIRMING THE REVENUES CONTENTION. IN VIE W OF THE MAJORITY OPINION OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF CH ARITABLE INSTITUTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE . 15. SINCE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. VISHWA JAGRUTI MISSION (SUPRA) HAS DISTINGUISHE D VARIOUS JUDGMENTS ON THE ISSUE, WE DO NOT INTEND TO DISCUSS THE SAME AGAIN. HOWEVER, WE RESPECTFULLY AGREE WITH THE PRIN CIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHICH WERE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 16. THIS ISSUE CAN ALSO BE LOOKED INTO IN AN OTHER MANNER. NOT ONLY THE BOARD CIRCULAR 5-P (LXX-6) OF 1968 DATED 19.06.1968 BUT ALSO THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCO UNTANTS OF INDIA HAS GIVEN GUIDELINES ABOUT THE CLAIM OF DEPRE CIATION. EVEN, AS SEEN FROM THE DECISION OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 344 (KERALA), 7 ITA.NO.1099 & 1100/HYD/2015 M/S. KAMINENI EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYDERABAD THERE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ACTIVITY OF RUNNING H OSPITAL AND THE ISSUE AROSE, WHILE CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME. THE HOSPITAL WAS RUN BY THE T RUST. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO SUCH BUSI NESS ACTIVITY. AS SEEN FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME PLACED ON RE CORD, ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY APPLICATION OF INCOME TOWARDS PURCHASE OF ASSETS IN THIS YEAR. A.O. HAS NOT BROUG HT OUT ANYTHING ON RECORD THAT ASSETS PURCHASED BY ASSESSE E HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN EARLIER YEARS AND WITHOUT E XAMINING THE ISSUE A.O. CANNOT DISALLOW THE AMOUNT, SIMPLY BECAU SE THERE WAS A CASE LAW ESTABLISHING THE PRINCIPLE THAT DOUBLE D EDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE. 3. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS W ELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF AP OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE SAID CASE, AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS, THE COST OF WHICH IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS APPLICATION. 3.1. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DIVISION BENCH DEC ISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, I, DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW TH E CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS EVEN THOUGH THE COST OF WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AS APPLIC ATION IN EARLIER YEARS. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.10.2015. SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 28 TH OCTOBER, 2015 VBP/- 8 ITA.NO.1099 & 1100/HYD/2015 M/S. KAMINENI EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYDERABAD COPY TO 1. M/S. KAMINENI EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYDERABAD C/O. MR. K. VASANTKUMAR & MR. A.V. RAGHURAM, ADVOCATES, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD-1. 2. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - 9 , HYDERABAD 4. PR. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT A ( SMC) BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE