Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 662 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation - assets (Vehicles / Car) are purchase in the name of the Directors of the company - HELD THAT:- It is a well settled position that even if the assets are purchase in the name of the Directors of the company and the same are used for the purpose of the business of the assessee company, then the assessee company is eligible to claim depreciation on the same, irrespective of the fact that the assets (vehicles) are not registered in the name of the company. In the case of Bajaj Herbals (P.) Ltd [2021 (7) TMI 729 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] held since car was reflected as an asset of company and car loan also appeared as a liability in balance sheet of company and car was used for business of assessee, assessee was to be allowed benefit of depreciation on said car even though it was bought by company in name of its Director. In the instant facts, CIT(Appeals) has made a specific observation that firstly, the assets (vehicles) have not been acquired out of funds of the assessee company, secondly, the assets have been purchased in the names of Shri Bharat Agarwal, Dinesh Chandra Agrawal, however, the assessee has not been able to show the relation of these person with assessee company. We are hereby restoring the file to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to verify whether the firstly, assets (vehicles) have been acquired out of funds of the assessee company, secondly, whether Shri Bharat Agarwal, Dinesh Chandra Agrawal i.e. person in whose names the vehicles have been registered are the Directors of the assessee company. In case, the assessee is able substantiate the above two aspects, Ld. CIT(Appeals) may allow the appeal of the assessee. Addition u/s 40A(3) - payment by bearer cheque - HELD THAT:- Out of the total payment of Rs. 3.09 crores made to the same party i.e. Shri Dharmendra Rajput, proprietor, Sunrise Construction, a sum of Rs. 6,35,000/- was paid by way of bearer cheque, on account of an inadvertent mistake, wherein “account payee cheque” was omitted to be mentioned on the face of the cheque. It is not the case of the Department that any cash withdrawal was made in the instant facts. Payee also treated the aforesaid bearer cheque as “account payee cheque” and deposited the money in the bank along with other account payee cheques. The genuineness and details of the payee/transaction are not also doubted. In the case of Ramaditya Investments [2003 (5) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it was held that the provisions of section 40A(3) are not attracted where the parties are identified and there was no material on record to doubt the genuineness of payment. Where a transaction is found to be genuine and the identity of the payee is established, a liberal view on compelling and mitigating circumstances should be taken. This principle was also affirmed in the case of Janam Bhoomi [1996 (12) TMI 37 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] In the present case, the mistake is clearly bona-fide and inadvertent looking into the totality of circumstances. Decided in favour of assessee. Non-deduction of TDS - payments made to transporters - assessee has failed to submit the PAN of recipients and thus there was violation of the provisions of section 194C - HELD THAT:- As per the facts placed before us, admittedly the assessee has not deducted TDS on payments made to some parties and has also not furnished in their PAN numbers. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals), who on appreciation of the instant facts, gave partial relief to the assessee.
|