IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.32 of 2011 Date of decision: 8.4.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Market Committee, Ding. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 25.5.2010 in ITA No.428/Chd./2010 for the assessment year 2007-08 claiming following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs.9,56,027/- claimed to have been contributed to HSAM Board under statutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 is allowable without appreciating that no evidence I.T.A. No.32 of 2011 could be produced by the assessee to prove that such expenditure was actually incurred and whether such contribution can be treated to fall within the ambit of application of income for charitable purposes as defined in section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act?” 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in holding that the depreciation on fixed asset is allowable in the case of charitable trust/institution particularly when the income is computed as per provisions of sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as question of depreciation does not arise when capital expenditure is also considered as application of income of the assessee and there remains no assets/WDV for claim of depreciation? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in law in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) to allow double deduction on depreciation when capital expenditure on the asset has already been allowed in the light of the Apex Court’s decision in Escorts Limited Vs UOI (199-ITR-43) to the effect that in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit an assessee two deductions on same expenditure. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that as for as question (1) is concerned, the same is covered against the revenue by judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.151 2 I.T.A. No.32 of 2011 of 2010 in CIT v. Market Committee, Narwana and as far as questions (2) and (3) are concerned, the same are covered by judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.535 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Market Committee, Pipli Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 08, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3