TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-11, Mumbai dated 10/11/2010 for assessment year 2007-08. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on car amounting to ₹ 1,24,426/-. The appellant submits that the car is owned an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have been disallowed by the AO on the ground that the assessee is not the owner of the car relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Vs. CWT (1986) 162 ITR 888. The disallowance made by the A.O has been upheld by Ld. CIT(A). It has been observed by Ld. CIT(A) that even if the payment for the car has been made by the assessee company, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id section does not deal with the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle nor does that impose any restriction on transfer of such ownership. It simply obligates the transferors and transferee to report within specified time from the date of transfer the fact of transfer to the registration authority. The said section pre-suppose transfer of ownership of motor vehicle. It is only after the actu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Vehicle Act. Thus it was held that the question of ownership was to be decided in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances thereof. The fats in the present case are clear. The amount for purchase of vehicle has been paid by the assessee company and vehicle is also being used by the assessee company. Therefore, benefit of depreciation cannot be disallowed simply because of the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
