Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1597 - AT - Income TaxClaim of depreciation and related expenses on the vehicles registered in the name of the Director of assessee company - ownership of asset/vehicle - disallowing the depreciation claimed for the cars used by the directors for officials work of the company but ownership documents in the name of individual director - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that the vehicles on which the depreciation has been disallowed and interest on loan taken on such vehicles are reflected in the audited Balance-sheet of the assessee and the repayment of the loan is also made by the assessee. The only reason for disallowance of depreciation was that the vehicles are not in the name of assessee but are in the name of the Director of assessee’s company. The submission of the assessee that the vehicles have been used for the purpose of business of the assessee has not been controverted by Revenue. We find that in the case of CIT Vs. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [1992 (9) TMI 74 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had held that an assessee who has purchased the motor vehicle for valuable consideration and used the same for his business cannot be denied the benefit of depreciation on the ground that the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicles Act or that the vehicle to be in the name of the vendors. As decided in SWATI AUTO LINK P. LTD VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER [2013 (2) TMI 727 - ITAT AHMEDABAD]mere non-registration of a vehicle in the name of company under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot disentitle an assessee to its claim of depreciation, when the investment for purpose of vehicle had made and it being used for the purpose of business is an undisputed fact. It further noted that the requirement of Section 32 of the Act is that the vehicle must be owned by the assessee and not that the assessee must be a “registered owner” under the same Motor Vehicles Act. We further find that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Salkia Transport Associates [1982 (9) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] as observed that the requirement of Sec.32 of the I.T. Act is that the vehicles must be “owned by the assessee”. This section does not require that the assessee must be a registered owner of the vehicles in order to claim depreciation allowance in respect of him - Decided in favour of assessee.
|