Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (11) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and M. M. SUNDRESH JJ. J. Naresh Kumar for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J.— The Revenue has come up on appeal against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, dated September 21, 2007 passed in I. T. A. Nos. 2805 and 2806 Mds/2005 against the assessees—wife and husband, respectively, in respect of the assessment year 2002-03 by formulating the following common substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation of Rs. 4,88,901 when the assessee was only a beneficial owner of the bus? 2. Whether under section 32 of the In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hree buses bearing Registration Nos. TN 36 L 7888, TN 36 M 7888 and TN 36 H 7889 stood in the name of K. Chin-nusamy for the former two buses and one K. Poongodi for the later bus was denied on the ground that according to section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act the basic condition to claim depreciation was that the assets should be owned by the assessee. Despite the fact that the assessee has made available much more voluminous documents to prove that the income and the expenditure has been received and expended only by the assessee the Assessing Officer on the ground that mere admission of the income of the assessee in the assessee's hands cannot per se permit the assessee to claim higher rate of depreciation and rejected the claim of depreci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... clear that the provision required that the tangible assets should be owned by the assessee wholly or partly. The words "owned wholly or partly" have been considered by the Supreme Court and various High Courts and explained that under the common law "owner" means a person who has got a valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act, etc., in the context of the Income-tax Act, 1961, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of the Act, viz., to tax the income, "owner" is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. In order to claim the benefit of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... income and expenditure account; and the entire expenditure pertaining to the buses including drivers' salary, diesel, spares, R.T.O. tax, interest on the loans and other expenses were met by the assessee. The assessee has also shown in the balance-sheet the buses under dispute as assets of M/s. K. A. S. Transports, which is a proprietary concern of the assessee. 8. Thus, the assessee has made available all the documents relating to the business and also established before the authorities that she is a beneficial owner, though her name has not been shown as owner of the buses in the permit as well as the RC book and she is virtually the beneficial owner and receiving the income from exploitation of buses and incurred expenses as stated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates