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

1967 (10) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to each item as we deal with it. Regarding the sum of Rs. 53,634, on account of depreciation, the facts in brief are that the Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd., which is a subsidiary of the assessee, the Associated Cement Co. Ltd., was at one time appointed a common sales manager for the assessee and several other companies, namely, the Patiala Cement Co. Ltd. and the Dalmia group of cement companies. This was by an agreement dated 4th June, 1942. In 1948, however, the Dalmia group dropped out of the arrangement and since then the Cement Marketing Company was only attending to the sales on behalf of the assessee and its subsidiary, the Patiala Cement Co. Ltd. On 21st April, 1954, the agreement with the Cement Marketing Company was renewed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as the annual depreciation for the assessment year 1956-57, and the short question that has been posed is whether the assessee-company would be entitled to be allowed this depreciation in the year of account. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the Cement Marketing Company was a separate legal entity from the assessee-company and since the assets were in fact being used by the Cement Marketing Company, it cannot really be said that the assets were being used for the purpose of the assessee's business. This order was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal, who took the view that the assets irrespective of who was using them actually belonged to the assessee and, therefore, the requirements of section 10(2)(vi) we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see in the course of carrying on its business. No doubt they are being used by the Cement Marketing Company, but the position of the Cement Marketing Company is no more than that of a sales manager and, therefore, if the property of the assessee has been used by the sales manager it is still the property of the assessee, the assets being used by them for and on behalf of the assessee. Upon these facts, we have no doubt whatever that this item of depreciation was rightly allowed to the assessee. We can see nothing wrong in the view taken by the Tribunal. In that view the question No. 1 which covers this item and was framed in the following terms : cc Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, depreciation on assets owned by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -company passed two resolutions. The first was on the 26th June, 1953. By it they sanctioned a sum of Rs. 5,000 for the " Pilot Kiln-Department of Chemical Technology, University of Bombay. " It appears that thereafter the preparation of the pilot kiln was undertaken but its actual cost came to Rs. 6,600 and since the amount of Rs. 5,000 sanctioned had run short, the second resolution was passed as follows : " Rs. 1,600 the extra cost of manufacturing a pilot kiln for presentation to the University, Department of Chemical Technology, Bombay, in addition to Rs. 5,000 previously sanctioned." When the total of these two amounts came under the scrutiny of the Income-tax Officer he held that the rebate under section 15B was not admissible. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Bombay was ultimately a sum of Rs. 6,600. That amount ultimately went out of its coffers and in another shape was received by the University of Bombay. If instead of passing the two resolutions, which it did and then undertaking the preparation of the kiln and supplying the kiln to the University, the assessee had made out a cheque for that amount, handed it over to the University, got it re-endorsed in their favour and then had undertaken the preparation of the kiln, we suppose that the department would have had no objection. Rather than resorting to such an obvious device the assessee considered that the amount of Rs. 6,600 which it had donated to the University was with the consent of the University at its disposal and utilised it fo .....

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