TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the place of the lessee it could be presumed that the same had been utilised, even assuming that such actual user was a condition precedent for the lessee to claim depreciation. - In the light of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for our consideration in this revenue’s appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 9-1-2006 - Judge(s) : T. S. THAKUR., B. N. CHATURVEDI. JUDGMENT For the assessment year 1996-97 the assessee who was engaged in the business of leasing equipment claimed depreciation on cyclonic scubber equipment and electro static precipitator purchased from M/s. Assam Solvex P. Ltd., Assam for a sum of Rs. 39,87,500. The Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur Plywood Manufacturing P. Ltd. to whom they were given on lease on the terms and conditions set out in the lease agreement. We also find that the so-called discrepancies/deficiencies pointed out by the Assessing Officer in these transactions were misconceived and in any case, the same were not sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the said transactions and dislodge the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the said machinery which was supported by cogent and conclusive evidence." In so far as the actual user of the machines is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of this court in Capital Bus Service P. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 404 and that of the High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se agreement and the same were also proved to have been actually delivered to the lessee before September 30, 1995, on evidence, they were put to use by the assessee for the purpose of its leasing business before September 30, 1995, itself as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Capital Bus Service P. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 404 and by the hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Corporation [2000] 244 ITR 452. The objection of the Assessing Officer on this count thus was not tenable and overruling the same, we hold that the assessee was duly entitled to claim depreciation at the full rate as applicable." Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant before us did not pursue the Revenue' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
