IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.810 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.2.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. Market Committee, Assandh. -----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, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.305/DEL/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07 proposing following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to allow set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of earlier years, despite the fact that depreciation per se is not allowable on capital assets when deduction for capital expenditure has already been allowed as application of income in earlier years and when the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of the I.T.A. No.810 of 2010 Income Tax Act have not specifically provided for carry forward and set off of losses or unabsorbed depreciation in the case of income assessed u/s 11 to 13 of the Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in directing the AO to consider the excess amount of application of income of previous years to be adjusted in the current year, despite there being no provision in Section 11 to 13 of the Act in this regard and despite the fact that the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (164 ITR 439) is not applicable to this jurisdiction? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation was allowable on the capital asset, when deduction for capital expenditure incurred for acquisition of these capital assets has already been allowed as application of income of the trust?” Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.238 of 2010 CIT v. Market Committee, Karnal and other connected matters. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 23, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2