- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion addresses an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act concerning the computation of income by a trust deriving income from depreciable assets. The assessee, a trust, claimed depreciation on these assets when computing income. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed depreciation on the ground that full capital expenditure had already been allowed in the year of acquisition. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (AAC), who rejected the appeal. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, interpreting that the allowance of capital expenditure as application of income in the year of acquisition does not preclude claiming depreciation in subsequent years. The Department sought the High Court's determination on whether the Tribunal was correct in law in directing the ITO to allow depreciation in such circumstances.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in directing the ITO to take depreciation into account in computing the income from depreciable assets when full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of those assets.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents referred to a Circular dated 26th November 1968 issued by the CBDT, which clarified that for a business undertaking held under trust, income should be taken as shown in the accounts of the undertaking.
- Where the trust derives income from sources such as house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or others, the income should be understood in its commercial sense.
- They also pointed out that in previous years, a similar question raised in respect of the Laxmi Charitable Trust was rejected by the High Court, implying support for their position.
Appellant's Arguments
- The ITO argued that since the full capital expenditure on the assets was allowed as application of income in the year of acquisition, depreciation should not be allowed subsequently in computing income.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Laxmi Charitable Trust (earlier year case) | Rejection of a similar question under section 256(2) regarding depreciation and capital expenditure allowance | Used to support the view that the question raised is already settled against the Department’s contention |
| CBDT Circular dated 26th November 1968 | Clarification on income of business undertakings held under trust to be taken as per accounts, and income from various sources to be understood commercially | Supported the respondents’ position that depreciation can be claimed notwithstanding the capital expenditure treatment |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the question posed by the Department, noting that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the ITO’s position. The ITO’s statement that full capital expenditure was allowed in the year of acquisition was understood as treating the expenditure as application of income in that year, not as a disallowance of depreciation in subsequent years. The Court emphasized that this does not preclude depreciation being taken into account in computing income from those assets in later years. The Court also found the question framed to be somewhat misleading and based on a misconception, as it reproduced the ITO’s language without clarifying its true meaning. Additionally, the Court referenced the CBDT Circular which supports the commercial understanding of income for trusts holding business assets. The prior rejection of a similar question in the Laxmi Charitable Trust case was noted as reinforcing the Court’s conclusion.
Holding and Implications
The Court discharged the rule, effectively upholding the Tribunal’s direction that depreciation should be allowed in computing income despite the capital expenditure being allowed in the year of acquisition.
The direct consequence of this decision is that the assessee-trust is entitled to claim depreciation on depreciable assets even though the full capital expenditure has been treated as application of income in the acquisition year. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the correctness of the Tribunal’s interpretation and clarifying the proper understanding of the ITO’s position.
1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act. The Department requires the following question to be raised by the Tribunal and referred to us for determination :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law directing the ITO to take depreciation into account in computing the income from depreciable assets when in fact the full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of these assets ?"
2. The assessee is a trust. Its income is derived from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because full capital expenditure has been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the AAC who rejected the Appeal. The Tribunal has however, allowed the Appeal. The Tribunal has explained the position by stating that when the ITO says that full expenditure has been allowed in the year of the acquisition of the assets, what he really means is that the amount spent on acquiring these assets had been treated as application of income of the trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring these assets. This does not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account.
3. The respondents have drawn out attention to a Circular dt. 26th November 1968 issued by the CBDT under which it has clarified that in the case of a business undertaking held under trust its income will be income as shown in the accounts of the undertaking and that where the trust derives income from house property, interest on securities, capital gains or other sources, the income should be understood in its commercial sense.
4. We are also informed that in the earlier years when a similar question arose in respect of an assessee known as Laxmi Charitable Trust, an application under s. 256(2) was rejected by this High Court. In our view, therefore, the answer to the question is obvious.
5. We may also point out that the question as framed is somewhat misleading and is based on misconception, in so far as it reproduces the language used by the ITO which we have explained earlier.
6. The rule is discharged.
Alert