TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 15-12-2009 for assessment year 2007-08. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in disallowance of depreciation on vehicle. For this, assessee has raised the following ground No.1:- 1. The Ld. CIT Appeals XIV Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in passing appellate order dated 16/03/2010 for A.Y. 2007-08 in the case of appellant by confirming the disallowance of depreciation on vehicles amounting to Rs.1,54,803/-. 3. The brief facts leading to the above issue are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings disallowed the claim of depreciation on the ground that the motor car purchased in the name of Director, of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant. The appellant has not submitted any reply or presented any case law to controvert the case laws relied don by the A.O. The appellant is relying on the case laws which are prior to the latest decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M.M. Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 204 in which Hon ble High Court duly considered and distinguished the Hon ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 0775 and relied on the latest decision in the case of Tamilnadu Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 214 of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Hon ble Delhi High Court duly considered the facts of the appellant company in the case of M.M. Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany. Before us also assessee filed complete funds flow statement which proves that the vehicle was purchased from the assessee company s funds. We find that Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (No.2) (2002) 256 ITR 357 (Raj) held that assessee-company-firm was entitled to depreciation on vehicle purchased by it for its business purpose but registered in the name of one of the partners. Further, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Ltd.(2002) 257 ITR 88 (Del) held that assessee was entitled to depreciation on vehicle though the vehicle was not registered in its name. The assesseecompany also submitted that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
