IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. & ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.
Dy. CIT v. Delhi Public School Society
ITA No. 6084/Del/2016
28 January, 2021
Assessee by: Nirbhay Mehta, Advocate
Revenue by: H.K. Choudhary, (Commissioner--Departmental Representative)
Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against Order, dated 28-9-2016 passed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals)-36, New Delhi (Commissioner (Appeals)) for assessment year 2011-12. The grounds of appeal are as under :--
'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law & fact by ignoring that the receipts are on account of franchisee fee and the same are in the nature of business income within the meaning of provisions of sub-section 4A of section 11 of the Act. The assessee failed to maintain separate books of accounts as per sub section 12A of section 2 of the Income Tax Act.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in allowing the claim of carry forward of losses disregarding the fact that set-off and carry forward of losses are dealt with by the provisions of section 70 to 74 of the Income Tax Act.
3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law & fact that allowing depreciation of fixed assets is tantamount double deduction as the expenditure on fixed assets is already allowed.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.'
(B) At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted that the disputed issues in this case are covered in favour of the assessee's own case. The learned Counsel of the assessee further submitted that, in identical facts, in assessee's own case, the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi has already taken a view, on the disputed issues, in favour of the assessee vide Order, dated 8-8-2019 in ITA No. 2761/Del/2017 for assessment year 2013-14. The Learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) ('Learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative), for short) appearing for Revenue accepted that all the issues in disputed were covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid Order, dated 8-8-2019 of Co-ordinate Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT', for short), Delhi, in which, in identical facts, the disputed issues were decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Order, dated 8-8-2019 of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Delhi in assessee's own is reproduced below :--