9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , folklore, indigenous craft, etc. The assessee-society was constituted as an autonomous body by the Government of Rajasthan, vide order dated August 11, 2003, to preserve and promote art and culture in Rajasthan and to contribute to the cultural and social development of the people of the State. Consequent to the order dated August 11, 2003, the assessee-society came to be formed and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1958, on September 19, 2003. During the course of hearing before the Assessing Officer (for short, the "AO"), the registration certificate, memorandum of association were also placed on record. It has also been granted registration under section 12A, with effect from April 1, 2005. Prior to the constitution of the assessee-society, Jawahar Kala Kendra, was managed by the Government of Rajasthan. On its constitution as a society, all the assets and liabilities were transferred and incorporated in the books of the assessee-society. The chairperson of the assessee-society is the Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan and all other members of the governing body are persons of eminence. On the transfer of assets in its books of account, the assesseesoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Appellate Tribunal who also approved the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue which is now assailed by the Revenue before this court by way of filing the instant appeal. 7. Shri R. B. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue, submitted that when the respondent-assessee was not the owner of the asset, therefore, the question of allowing the depreciation does not arise. He contended that may be the hon'ble Governor of Rajasthan or the State Government transferred all the assets to the assessee-society and, thereafter, the assessee-society came to be constituted but no evidence was led that the title over the assets stood transferred to the society. He contended that under the Income-tax Act, ownership is proved with title only and when there was no title with the assessee-society, it could not be said to be an owner who could claim depreciation. He further contended that despite repeated directives the assessee-society was unable to lead any evidence except the order of the Government of Rajasthan and creation of a society. He further contended that if a claim was wrongly allowed in the earlier assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the actual cost thereof shall be taken to be twenty-five thousand rupees. Explanation 1.-Where an asset is used in the business after it ceases to be used for scientific research related to that business and a deduction has to be made under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32 in respect of that asset, the actual cost of the asset to the assessee shall be the actual cost to the assessee as reduced by the amount of any deduction allowed under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 35 or under any corresponding provision of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922). Explanation 2.-Where an asset is acquired by the assessee by way of gift or inheritance, the actual cost of the asset to the assessee shall be the actual cost to the previous owner, as reduced by (a) the amount of depreciation actually allowed under this Act and the corresponding provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing before the 1st day of April, 1988 ; and (b) the amount of depreciation that would have been allowable to the assessee for any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1988, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd is using the same for the purposes of his business or profession. Assigning any different meaning would not subserve the legislative intent. To take the case at hand it is the appellant-assessee who having paid part of the price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature. The finding of fact arrived at in the case at hand is that though a document of title was not executed by Housing Board in favour of the assessee, but the houses were allotted to the assessee by the Housing Board, part payment received and possession delivered so as to confer dominion over the property on the assessee whereafter the assessee had in its own right allotted the quarters to the staff and they were being actually used by the staff of the assessee. It is common knowledge, und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
