- (1.) All these three appeals filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961') have arisen from two sets of judgments and order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") raising same questions though relates to different Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as "A.Y."), details whereof are as under: JUDGEMENT_203_LAWS(ALL)3_2017.html
(2.) Though substantial questions of law raised in all these appeals are same, but since there is difference of amount mentioned in the different appeals, we reproduce respective substantial questions of law involved in all these appeals as under: Income Tax Appeal No. 102 of 2015: (1) Whether Tribunal is justified in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 1,66,49,749/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of dis-allowance of depreciation without appreciating the facts that entire cost of capital expenditure has already been allowed as deduction under Section 11 of Act, 1961, against the income of trust in respective years and therefore, allowance of revenue expenditure under Section 11 of the Act, 1961 on assets which had already been claimed and allowed as deduction on account of expenditure, tantamount double deduction. (2) Whether the Tribunal is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,66,49,749/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of dis-allowance of depreciation without appreciating the fact that the Assessee Society is claiming expedition under Section 11 of Act, 1961. Income Tax Appeal No. 94 of 2015: (1) Whether Tribunal is justified in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 1,66,97,767/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of dis-allowance of depreciation without appreciating the facts that entire cost of capital expenditure has already been allowed as deduction under Section 11 of Act, 1961, against the income of trust in respective years and therefore, allowance of revenue expenditure under Section 11 of the Act, 1961 on assets which had already been claimed and allowed as deduction on account of expenditure, tantamount double deduction. (2) Whether the Tribunal is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,66,97,767/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of dis-allowance of depreciation without appreciating the fact that the Assessee Society is claiming expedition under Section 11 of Act, 1961. Income Tax Appeal No. 41 of 2016: (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified by upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for allowing the depreciation of Rs. 1,63,63,436/- on capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that entire cost of capital expenditure has already been allowed as deduction under Section 11 of Act, 1961 against the income of trust in respective years and, therefore, allowance of revenue expenditure under Section 11 of Act, 1961 on whose assets, which had already been claimed and allowed as deduction on account of capital expenditure, tantamount double deduction. (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue of deletion of the additional of Rs. 8,18,138/- made by Assessing Officer disallowing the claim of expenditure incurred on account of scholarship paid to one Mr. Adheesh Bhagat as it cannot be said to have been paid for charitable purposes.
(3.) Basic facts common for all these appeals, necessary for adjudication of these questions, are stated as under.;