Kamineni Educational Society, Hyd, Hyderabad V. Dy.DIT(Exemptions)-I, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 939/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1911 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• 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 BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL ME MBER ITA NO.939/HYD/2015 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AAATK 6305 J) V/S. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTION) I, HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V.RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.SITARAM DR DATE OF HEARING 13 . 1 0 . 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.10.2015 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APP EALS) 9, HYDERABAD AND THE SOLITARY ISSUE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPREC IATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ASSETS, THE COST OF WHICH IS CLAIMED AS APPLICATION. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. LEAR NED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AP OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION, HY DERABAD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 RENDERED VIDE ORDER DATED 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 IN ITA NO.1272/HYD/2013. A COPY OF THE SAID O RDER IS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US AND A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT A SIMILAR ITA NO.939/ HYD/201 5 KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 2 ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISCUSSING ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS ON THE ISSUE ELABORATELY IN PARAS 7 TO 16, WHICH RE AD 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 TH E I.T. ACT. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ALL THE RECEIPTS IN INCOME-EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPE NSES IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WHILE DECLARING EXCESS OF IN COME 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 GOVERNING COMP UTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS MAY NOT APPLY TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, S INCE THE INCOME OF A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION HAS TO BE COMPUT ED UNDER ORDINARY PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTING, AND D EPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON DEPRECIABLE ASSETS HELD BY A CHARI TABLE INSTITUTION TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME OF 75% (NOW 85%) WHICH IS R EQUIRED TO BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE WHEREIN THE DEPRECIATION WAS ALSO CLAIMED ON AN ASSET WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION WHILE USING FOR RESEARCH, AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE O N SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. ON THOSE FACTS, THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T HELD THAT DEPRECIATION WAS INADMISSIBLE SINCE THE ENTIRE COST OF THE ASSET USED FOR RESEARCH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. HOWEVER , THE SAME PRINCIPLE MAY NOT APPLY TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOM E 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, ITA NO.939/ HYD/201 5 KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 3 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. TH E COORDINATE BENCH RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY 3 28 ITR 421 (P&H) (HC) AND CIT VS. MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI (201 1) 330 ITR 16, IN ARRIVING AT THAT DECISION. THUS, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE ABOVE ISSUE AT THAT POINT 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 DEPRECIATION. 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 PUR POSE. 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 ITA NO.939/ HYD/201 5 KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 4 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 AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT THE APPE AL 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 SECTIO N 12AA VIDE ORDER DATED 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 AND, THEREFOR E, IT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME UNDER SECTI ON 11. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND IN DOING SO WHETHER DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS UTILISED FOR T HE CHARITABLE PURPOSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED. ON THIS ISSU E, THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONSENSUS OF JUDICIAL THINKING AS IS SEEN FROM THE AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. IN CIT VS. THE SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF ST. ANME (SUPRA), AN IDENTICAL QUESTION AROSE BEFORE THE KAR NATAKA HIGH COURT. THERE THE SOCIETY WAS RUNNING A SCHOOL IN BANGALORE AND WAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 1 1. THE QUESTION AROSE AS TO HOW THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR A PPLICATION TO CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES SHOULD BE COMP UTED. JAGANNATHA SETTY, J. SPEAKING FOR THE DIVISION BENC H OF THE COURT HELD THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD U NDER TRUST CANNOT BE THE 'TOTAL INCOME' AS DEFINED IN SE CTION 2(45) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE WORD 'INCOME' IS A WI DER TERM THAN THE EXPRESSION 'PROFITS AND GAINS 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 DERI VING 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 TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME OF THE TRUST SHO ULD BE UNDERSTOOD 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 COMMERCIAL SENSE, I.E., BOOK INCOME, AFTER ADDING BACK ANY APPROPRIATIONS OR APPLICATIONS THEREOF TOWARDS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST OR OTHERWISE, AND ALSO AFTER ADDING BACK ANY DEBITS MADE FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE 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 ITA NO.939/ HYD/201 5 KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 5 OUTGOINGS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE OF THE TRUS T. THE AMOUNTS SPENT OR APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF TH E TRUST FROM OUT OF THE INCOME COMPUTED IN THE AFORESAID MANNER, SHOULD BE NOT LESS THAN 75 PER CE NT. OF THE LATTER, IF THE TRUST IS TO GET THE FULL BENE FIT OF THE EXEMPTION U/S. 11(1).' 12. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS EARLIER EXPRESSED BY THE AND HRA 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 HI GH COURT IN CIT VS. RAIPUR PALLOTTINE SOCIETY (SUPRA) HAS HELD, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CITED ABOVE, THAT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION/TRUST, DEPRECIATION OF ASSETS OWNED BY THE TRUST/INSTITUTION IS A NECESSARY DEDUCTION ON COMME RCIAL PRINCIPLES. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AFTER 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 T O BE DEDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPL ICATION TO CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 13. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS LI MITED VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) HAS BEEN RIGHTLY HELD TO BE INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THERE ARE TWO REA SONS AS TO WHY THE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT C ASE. FIRSTLY, THE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH T HE CASE OF A CHARITABLE TRUST/INSTITUTION INVOLVING THE QUE STION 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. I T WAS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND THE STATUTORY COMPUTATION PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER IV-D OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE NOT CO NCERNED WITH THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE PROVISIONS. WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE CONCEPT OF COMMERCIAL INCOME AS UNDER STOOD FROM THE ACCOUNTING POINT OF VIEW. EVEN UNDER NORMA L COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, THERE IS AUTHORIT Y FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT DEPRECIATION IS A NECESSARY CHARGE IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME. SECONDLY, THE SUPREME COU RT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAI MED DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF THE ASSET UNDER SECTION 35 (1) OF THE ACT, WHICH ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITUR E INCURRED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER AF TER CLAIMING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF THE AS SET UNDER SECTION 35(1), CAN THE ASSESSEE AGAIN CLAIM DEDUCTI ON ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSE T. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT, UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ITA NO.939/ HYD/201 5 KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 6 TAXATION, DOUBLE DEDUCTION IN REGARD TO THE SAME BU SINESS OUTGOING IS NOT INTENDED UNLESS CLEARLY EXPRESSED. THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT ONE OF THIS TYPE, AS RIGHTLY DI STINGUISHED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 14. HAVING REGARD TO THE CONSENSUS OF JUDICIAL OPIN ION ON THE PRECISE QUESTION THAT HAS ARISEN IN THE PRESENT APP EAL, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND FRAME ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY CONTRARY VIEW PLAUSIBLE ON THE QUESTION RAISED BEFO RE US AND AT ANY RATE NO JUDGMENT TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEC LINE TO ADMIT THE PRESENT APPEAL AND DISMISS THE SAME WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 13. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. ADIC HUNCHANAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST (2013) 31 TAXMANN.COM 157 (BANGALOR E TRIB.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TR UST REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A CAN CLAIM BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 1 1 IN THE FORM OF APPLICATION OF FUNDS AS WELL AS DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST. THE SAME OPINION WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF DDIT(E), BANGALORE VS. CUTCHI MEMON UNION (2013) 38 TAXMAN.C OM 276 (BANGALORE-TRIB.) WHEREIN 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 COURT AN D DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, THERE IS ONLY A LONE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT AGAINST THE A BOVE OPINION CONFIRMING THE REVENUES CONTENTION. IN VIEW OF THE MAJORITY OPINION OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINI ON THAT AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF CHARITABL E INSTITUTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME AVAI LABLE 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 ITA NO.939/ HYD/201 5 KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 7 AGAIN. HOWEVER, WE RESPECTFULLY AGREE WITH THE PRIN CIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHICH WERE IN FAVO UR 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 DAT ED 19.06.1968 BUT ALSO THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA HAS GIVEN GUIDELINES ABOUT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. EVEN, A S SEEN FROM THE DECISION OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LI SSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 344 (KERALA), T HERE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ACTIVITY OF RUNNING HOSPITAL AN D THE ISSUE AROSE, WHILE CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS WH ILE COMPUTING THE INCOME. THE HOSPITAL WAS RUN BY THE TRUST. HOWE VER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO SUCH BUSINESS ACTIVITY. A S SEEN FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME PLACED ON RECORD, ASSESSEE HA S NOT CLAIMED ANY APPLICATION OF INCOME TOWARDS PURCHASE OF ASSET S IN THIS YEAR. A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANYTHING ON RECORD THAT AS SETS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN EARLI ER YEARS AND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE ISSUE A.O. CANNOT DISALLOW TH E AMOUNT, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A CASE LAW ESTABLISHING TH E PRINCIPLE THAT DOUBLE DEDUCTION 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. ITA NO.939/ HYD/201 5 KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 8 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 TH OCTOBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (P.MADHAVI DEVI) (P.M.JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/- 14 TH OCTOBER, 2015 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. KAMINENI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O. SHRI K.VASANT K UMAR, A.V. RAGHU RAM & SHRI P.VINOD, ADVOCATES, FLAT NO.6 10, 6TH FLOOR, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD -1. 3. 4. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) I, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) 9, HYDERABAD 5. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYD ERABAD 6. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S