TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason to disturb the concurrent view taken by the authorities. The question proposed by the appellant thus cannot be stated to be a substantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal – Assessee’s appeal dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 7-7-2005 - Judge(s) : SWATANTER KUMAR., J. P. SINGH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SWATANTER KUMAR J.- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in disallowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 76,453, even though the dominion in respect of the vehicle was with the appellant-company and the law was settled that the non-registration of vehicle in the name of the assessee, was not a bar for the purposes of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775. This claim of the appellant was declined by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated March 28, 2003 holding that the company was a legal person capable of holding any property in its own name distinct from its directors and as the motor vehicle was registered in the name of the director, the claim of depreciation was disallowed. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who while affirming the finding of facts recorded by the Assessing Officer, held as under: "It is an admitted position that no perquisite value for the use of the car was added in the remuneration of the directors and no log book for the car or call re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh himself had incurred a liability by raising bank finance for the purpose of the vehicle. According to the Tribunal, there was no legal ownership vested in the assessee-company and even the beneficial ownership also did not vest in the company. Having declined to believe that dominion of the vehicle was vested in the company, the Tribunal disallowed the claim of depreciation vide its order dated May 18, 2005, giving rise to the present appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. B.L. Passi [2002] 254 ITR 225 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 775 contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... car was in the dominion of the company and was being utilised for the benefit of the company in the normal course of its business or even for matters strictly incidental thereto. The Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 214 had considered the judgment of that court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC) and it was held by the court that the word "owned" appearing in section 32 had been interpreted broadly and keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of that case. The assessee in that case had acquired possession of the house in question but the deed of conveyance was not executed until after the completion of the financial year in question. The assessee's claim for depreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
