IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.526 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.11.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Market Committee, Adampur. -----Respondents 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. 1. 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 dated 24.6.2009 in I.T.A. No.1550/Del/09 for the assessment year 2006-07 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in allowing payment of 30% of Market fees earned by it paid to the Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board as application of income for charitable purpose, despite the finding that 30% of the market fee has to be paid to the said Board as a statutory obligation under the Agricultural Marketing Board Act, and therefore, it is not application of income, but it is sharing of income I.T.A. No.526 of 2010 by an overriding title as per the Act by which the Market Committee is governed? ii) 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? iii) Whether the ITAT’s decision to allow double deduction on depreciation when capital expenditure on the asset has already been allowed is justified in the light of Apex Court’s decision in Escorts Ltd. 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 the same expenditure? 3. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that as far as question No.(i) is concerned, the same is covered against the revenue by judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.151 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar v. Market Committee, Narwana and question Nos.(ii) and (iii) are covered against the revenue by judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.535 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Market Committee, Pipli. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 2 I.T.A. No.526 of 2010 November 18, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 3