9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HAR LAL GUPTA J. -The assessee complains that the Revenue has illegally declined deduction on account of depredation on the value of the truck purchased by it on March 11, 1992. It claims that the case raises a substantial question of law and the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be set aside. The dispute relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and valid. He submits that on the examination of the evidence the authorities have recorded a finding of fact that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs had come back to the assessee within a week of its purchasing the truck and that the truck had gone back to the family of the seller after some time. Thus, it was a device to save tax. It has also been contended that the present appellant, viz., Mittal Beltin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ends that the ownership of the truck had passed to the appellant and the income therefrom, i.e., Rs.2,200 were added to its income. Thus, the benefit of depreciation could not have been denied. We are unable to accept this contention. If on -the examination of the evidence it is found that there was no genuine transaction between the parties, a pure paper transaction could not have entitled the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
