9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directing the Assessing Officer to withdraw the depreciation granted to the appellant on properties allotted to it on the dissolution of the partnership firm, Universal Real Estate Agency on March 30, 1976? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that allotment of properties to the partners on the dissolution of the firm resulted in transfer requiring registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, totally ignoring the principles to the contrary laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in S.V. Chandra Pandian v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar [1995] 212 ITR 592? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory buildings and the same was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range I, Coimbatore under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, by an order dated March 23, 1989. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax, by notice dated January 10, 1991, issued under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment made by the Assessing Officer by order dated March 23, 1989 should not be revised and the Assessing Officer should not be directed to withdraw the depreciation granted to the assessee in respect of the property situated at Mettupalayam Road. Though necessary objections have been filed, ultimately, the Commissioner rejected the same and directed the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In such circumstances, the retransfer to the assessee not supported by the documents under section 17 of the Registration Act cannot be regarded as correct. We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent and perused the material on record. As seen from the language employed under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, the only requirement is the person claiming depreciation is the owner of the property. The terms "own", "ownership" and "owned"" were considered by the Supreme Court as generic and relative in the decision reported in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775. The terms have a wide and a narrow connotation. The meaning would depend on the context in which the terms are used. In the case of CIT v. Po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
