M/s. Tamilnadu Cricket Association, CHENNAI V. DDIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1851/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61026 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJUNATH KAIKIHALLI SR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Capital expenditure
• Section: 12AA; 131; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1851/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S TAMILNADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.A. CHIDAMBARAM STADIUM, VICTORIA HOSTEL ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 005. PAN : AAAAT0398M (APPELLANT) V. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI - 600 034. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJUNATH KAIKIHALLI, SR. AR DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.04.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APP EAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AS A PART OF U TILIZATION FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. I.T.A. NO. 1851/MDS/11 2 2. ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY, WHICH IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). IT H AD RETURNED NIL INCOME AND WHILE COMPUTING 85% UTILIZATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, ASS ESSEE TREATED DEPRECIATION AS A PART OF UTILIZATION. ASSESSING O FFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ITSELF HAVING BEEN CLAIMED EARLIER AS APPLICATION OF INCOME, FURTHER CLAIM OF DEPRECIA TION ON ASSETS ACQUIRED OUT OF SUCH CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, COULD NOT BE AGAIN CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION. AS PER THE A.O., THIS W ILL RESULT IN CLAIMING OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HO NBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (199 ITR 43), HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 3. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) D ID NOT MEET WITH ANY SUCCESS, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INS TITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (264 ITR 110) AND THAT OF HONB LE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MARKET COM MITTEE, PIPILI (330 ITR 16). ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(APPEALS), HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAO BAHADUR CALAVA LA CUNNAN CHETTY CHARITIES (135 ITR 485) HAD HELD THAT INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE I.T.A. NO. 1851/MDS/11 3 OF APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT HAD TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE NORMAL PARLANCE WITHOUT INVOKING SECTION 14 OF THE ACT. AS PER LD. CIT(APPEALS), HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD CLEARLY RULED THAT INCOME FROM PROPERTIES HELD UNDER TRUST HAD TO BE ARRIVED AT IN A NORMAL COMMERCIAL MANNER. HENCE, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION OF CAPITAL ASSET S ACQUIRED FOR WHICH THE WHOLE OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS EARLIER CLAIMED AS UTILIZATION. 4. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R., STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRI MARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL HEALTH AND CH ARITABLE TRUST V. ACIT IN I.T.A. NOS. 142 TO 144/MDS/2010 DATED 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2011 HAD, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS CIT(APPEALS), HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E STOOD CLEARLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. TINY TOTS EDUCATION SOCIETY (330 ITR 21). 5. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTING THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, REITERATED THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA) SUPPORTED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. I.T.A. NO. 1851/MDS/11 4 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN OUR OPINION, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER DEPRECIA TION CAN BE CLAIMED AS AN UTILIZATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYI NG SECTION 11 OF THE ACT STANDS RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DE CISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TINY TOT S EDCUATION SOCIETY (SUPRA). THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRI MARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL HEALTH AND CHARITABLE TRU ST (SUPRA), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR BOTH S IDES, WHICH WERE ON SIMILAR LINES, HAD AT PARAS 5 & 6 OF ITS ORDER D ATED 2.2.2011, HELD AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN THE A PPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, CONSIDERED AN D DECIDED BY THE B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (IN WHICH ONE OF US IS PARTY) AND VIDE ORDER DATED 18.10.2010 IN THE CASE OF DDIT (EXEMPTIONS) V. M/S. ST. JOHNS EDUCATIONAL TRUST (SUPRA), THE SAME HAS BEEN CONSID ERED AND DISCUSSED TO DETERMINE FROM PARA 3 ONWARDS TO TAKE DECISION I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRO DUCED AS UNDER: 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A T RUST RUNNING EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND REGISTERED U/S. 12A(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE GROSS RECEIPTS, AMOUNTS OF DEPRECIATION CLA IMED AND REASONS FOR DISALLOWANCE FOR RESPECTIVE YEARS ARE GIVEN AS UNDE R: (A) THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR (I) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DECLARES NIL INCOME AND GROSS RECEIPTS OF ` .18,95,45,440/- IN WHICH THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE AT ` .2,72,85,356/- WHICH WAS COMPLETED AS NO DEMAND WHILE DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE COST OF ADDITION TO ASSETS AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS, CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME ASSETS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 1851/MDS/11 5 (B) THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR (I) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECLARES NIL INCOME AND GROSS RECEIPTS OF ` . 22,17,53,309/- IN WHICH THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE AT ` .2,82,17,782/- WHICH WAS COMPLETED AS NO DEMAND WHILE DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE COST OF ADDITION TO ASSETS AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS, CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME ASSETS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. (C) THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR (I) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DECLARES NIL INCOME AND GROSS RECEIPTS OF ` .21,71,47,737/- IN WHICH THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE AT ` . 2,64,72,392/- WHICH WAS COMPLETED AS NO DEMAND WHILE DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE COST OF ADDITION TO ASSETS AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS, CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME ASSETS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. (D) THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR (I) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DECLARES NIL INCOME AND GROSS RECEIPTS OF ` .23,53,18,947/- IN WHICH THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE AT ` .2,49,35,874/- WHICH WAS COMPLETED AS NO DEMAND WHILE DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE COST OF ADDITION TO ASSETS AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS, CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME ASSETS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. 5. ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE MATTERS IN APPEAL AND IT W AS CONTENDED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT ORDERS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER ARE NOT LEGALLY CORRECT BECAUSE HE HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THA T DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR DETERMINING TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST, THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INSTITUT E OF BANKING PERSONAL SOLUTION ( 264 ITR 110), AND PRAYED THAT APPEAL BE ALLOWED. 6. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHOSE SALIENT FEATURES WERE REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER IN PARA-5 OF HIS ORDER AND WHILE CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, IMPUGNED ORDER, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS C ASE WAS DISCUSSED FROM PARA-7 & 8 IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AN D CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE AS PER PARAS 9 TO 11 OF HIS ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 AS UNDER:- 9. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, REPORTED IN 264 ITR 110, WHEREIN THE ASSESS EE WAS THE TRUST AND IT DERIVED ITS INCOME FROM DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE TOOK INTO I.T.A. NO. 1851/MDS/11 6 ACCOUNT DEPRECIATION ON THOSE ASSETS IN COMPUTING T HE INCOME OF THE TRUST. THE ITO HELD THAT DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE TAKEN I NTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE FULL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE YE AR OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE APP ELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. THE APPEAL WAS REJECTED. THE TRIBUN AL, HOWEVER, TOOK THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE ITO STATED THAT FULL EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS, WHAT HE REAL LY MEANT WAS THAT THE AMOUNT SPENT ON ACQUIRING THOSE ASSETS HAD BEEN TRE ATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE IN COME WAS SPENT IN ACQUIRING THOSE ASSETS. THIS DID NOT MEAN THAT IN COMPUTING INCOME FROM THOSE ASSETS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, DEPRECIATION IN R ESPECT OF THOSE ASSETS CAN NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THIS VIEW OF THE TR IBUNAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE JUD GEMENT I.E. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) V. FRAMJEE CAWASJEE INSTIT UTE [1993] 109 CTR 463. HENCE, THIS ISSUE WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS I SSUE WAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. 10. THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION REPO RTED IN 264 ITR 110 (2003) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING, WHEREIN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSE TS THE COST OF WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S.11 IN THE PAST YEARS SQUARELY COVERED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 11. IN THE ADVENT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, CITE D SUPRA, THE APPELLANT TRUST IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS THE COST OF WHICH HAD BEEN FULLY ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S . 11 IN THE PAST YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO DEL ETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` .2,49,35,874/- MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REVIS E THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. THUS, THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN THE A PPEAL. THE SAID ORDER WAS FOLLOWED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS IN IDENTICAL MANNER WHEREIN CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THESE ORDERS OF CIT(A), THE DEPART MENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL FOR ALL THE YEARS AND WHILE RELYING UPON ANO THER SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ESCORT LTD., (199 ITR 43 ), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT DOUBLE TAXATION CAN NOT BE ALLOWED, UNLESS THERE IS EXPRESS PROVISION FOR THE SAME IN THE STATUTE AND WHILE REFERRING TO CIT(A)S ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S.RANGALETCHURNI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI, WHIC H HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS PLEADED FOR REVER SAL OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS AND TO UPHOLD THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. I.T.A. NO. 1851/MDS/11 7 8. LD. DR WHILE ARGUING THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTM ENT HAS MAINLY RELIED UPON HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/ S.ESCORT LTD., (SUPRA) TO PLEAD THAT WHEN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF FUND, SO ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME WOUL D TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE, THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE RELYING UPON THE BASIS AND REASONING AS GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN ALLOWING TH E FIRST APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS PLEADED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE IN TH ESE APPEALS IS FULLY COVERED BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION AND LD. CIT(A ) WHILE CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS CASE LAWS CI TED, HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE VIEW OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WHICH WA S THE ONLY VIEW AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF DECIDING THE APPEALS AND N OW ALSO HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S.TIN Y TOTS EDUCATION SOCIETY AS REPORTED IN 2010-TIOL-550-HIGH COURT-P& H-IT VIDE ORDER DT.28 TH JULY, 2010, UNDER SIMILAR FACTS, HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHILE ENCLOSING THE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY PL EADED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E, NOT BY ONE HIGH COURT BUT BY SECOND HIGH COURT ALSO IN WHICH SUPREME COUR T DECISIONS CASE OF ESCORT LTD. VS. UOI AND OTHERS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, HAS CONCLUDED TO HOLD THE QUESTION PROPOSED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, TH EREFORE BEING COVERED THE MATTER, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR ALL THE YEARS ARE L IABLE TO BE UPHELD. IT WAS THUS URGED FOR UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND FO R DISMISSING ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AS WELL AS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE RIVAL SIDE, WE FIND THAT IN THE R ECENT JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S.TINY TOTS EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA) HAS CONCLUDED TO DEC IDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARAS 4 TO 7 AS UNDER:- 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT IN VIE W OF JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS LTD. AND ANOTH ER V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1993] 199 ITR 43, THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT CLAIM DEDUCTION WHEN ITS INCOME WAS EXEMPT, AS IT WILL AM OUNT TO GETTING DOUBLE BENEFIT. 5. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION. 6. THE MATTER WAS DISCUSSED IN OUR RECENT JUDGEMEN T DATED 5.7.2010 IN ITA NO.535 OF 2009, THE CIT,KARNAL V. M ARKET I.T.A. NO. 1851/MDS/11 8 COMMITTEE,PIPLI. AFTER REFERRING TO JUDGMENTS IN C IT V. SETH MANILAL RANCHHODDAS VISHRAM BHAWAN TRUST [1992] 198 ITR 598 (GUJ.) AND CIT V. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONAL SELECTION (IBP S) (2003) 131 TAXMAN 386 (BOM.), CIT V. RAO BAHADUR CALAVALA CUNN AN CHETTY CHARITIES [1982] 135 ITR 485 (MAD.), CIT V. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF ST. ANNE [1984] 146 ITR 28 (KAR) AND CIT V. RAIPUR PALLOTTINE SOCIETY [1989] 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS LTD., (SUPRA), WAS HELD NO T TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE SITUATION WHERE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED BY A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION IN DETERMINING PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS APPL IED FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHARITABLE OBJECTS. IT WAS OBSERVED:-9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CLAIMING DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUN T OF DEPRECIATION AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENU E. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING EXEMPT, THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY CLA IMING THAT DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE INCOME FOR DETERMINING THE PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS WHICH HAVE TO BE APPLIED FOR TH E PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. THERE IS NO DOUBLE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE. JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS LTD AND ANOTHER (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE FOR THE ABOVE REASONS. IT CAN NOT BE HELD THAT DOUBLE BENEFIT IS GIVEN IN ALLOWING CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION FOR COMPUTING INCOME FOR PUR POSES OF SEC.11. THE QUESTIONS PROPOSED HAVE, THUS, TO BE ANSWERED A GAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THAT T HE QUESTIONS PROPOSED BY THE REVENUE ARE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS O F LAW. SINCE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL OR ANY HIGHER COURTS ORDER IN ITS FAVOUR, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR FLAW IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AS SUCH WHILE C ONCURRING WITH THE CONCLUSION AS DRAWN BY THE CIT(A), WE UPHOLD HIS OR DERS AND DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 6. SINCE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL OR ANY HIGHER COURTS ORDER IN ITS FAVOUR, THEREFORE, WHILE FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE ACCEPT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AN DIRECT THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE ISSUE THUS STANDS FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF AS SESSEE. NO OTHER ORDERS OF ANY HIGHER AUTHORITIES WERE BROUGHT BEFOR E US BY THE REVENUE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. HENCE, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDERS OF I.T.A. NO. 1851/MDS/11 9 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRECT THAT ASSESSEES CL AIM WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATION WHILE COMPUTING ITS EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 11 OF THE ACT, BE ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 10 TH APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 10 TH APRIL, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-XII, CHENNAI-34 (4) DIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE