K.S.JHAVERI, J. - (1.) In all these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment.
(2.) By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the department confirming the order of CIT(A).
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has framed following questions of law:- In DBITA No. 13/2018, 38/2018 and 39/2018 i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue on the issue of disallowance of depreciation by ignoring the facts that assessees like charitable or religious institutions are governed by almost the separate or independent provisions of Section 11, 12, 12A, 12AA and 13 and these provisions are independent code in itself in Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claim of depreciation under section 32 come under chapter IV of the Act under the head 'D' - Profit and Gains of Business or profession and depreciation is allowed when the capital assets are used for the purpose of business? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in dismissing appeal filed by the revenue on the issue of disallowance of depreciation by ignoring the fact that in the case of charitable or religious institutions, the assessee is eligible for any type of depreciation as the entire expenditure for the purchase of capital assets is allowed as a deduction and the same is treated as application of income under section 11(1) and claiming depreciation on the same capital assets tantamount to double deduction and is as per law as these capital assets are use for the purpose of business or profession as provide under section 32(1)"' iii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in laws, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that both depreciation and application of income are to be considered separately to determine the correct income without appreciating that the same tantamount to double deduction which is correct as per the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act? iv) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue on the issue of disallowance of depreciation placing reliance on their own decision without appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions v. Commissioner of Income Tax (348 ITR 344) has held that depreciation cannot be allowed on assets, where cost of such assets has already been allowed as application of income in the year of acquisition/purchase of asset? v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue on the issue of disallowance of depreciation placing reliance on their own decision without appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., and Another v. Union of India (199 ITR 43), while dealing with the issue of allowance expenditure on scientific research under section 35(1)(iv) [corresponding to section 10(2)(xiv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922] held that any expenditure of capital nature (or incurred towards purchase of capital assets) on scientific research allowed as deduction under section 35(1)(iv) cannot be allowed as deduction under section 35(1)(iv) cannot be allowed once again as deduction in the form of depreciation on such capital assets?";