" I- ~ :::J 0 U :r.: C> -J: <X: z ~ -~ <C J: Q Z <C OJ «..., z ~c.. l1li<,-,,'!C,,,-,'-='d Income Tax Appeal No. 188 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. .; " / Income Tax Appeal No. 188 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.7.2011 , Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar --- Appellant Versus Market Committee, Fatehabad -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue. ' AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.6.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi Bench, Bench 'E', New Delhi (in short "the Tribunal") in - ITA No. 1337/0eI/2010, relating to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The following substantial questions of law have been . claimed for determination of this Court: ,.(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Hon'b.le ITAT is justified in,allowing depreciation on capital assets even when capital expenditure on , .' 't Income Tax Appeal No. 188 of 2011 2 acquisition of the corresponding assets had already, ~een allowed as <"application of income' for the purpos~ of allowing exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act and as such further allowing of depreciation on these capital assets will amount to double deduction for the same expenditure? (ii) Whether allowing of depreciation on the capitsl assets by f- a:: ::> 0u :I: C)-J:«z >E ~« ::t: C Z« CJ« JZ ::) c.. Hon'ble ITAT is justified in the light of 'the Hon'.ble Apex -Court decision in the case of Escorts India Ltd. (199 ITR 43) wherein ~thas been held 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 appellant-revenue fairly concedes- that the aforesaid issues are covered by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 535 of.2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal vS', Market Committee, Pipli) decided on 5.7.2010 whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the revenue has been dismissed. 4. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. July 18, 2011 *rkmalik*