TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1995, and consequently, to direct the said Commissioner (1st respondent) to grant the relief to the petitioner-assessee for the assessment year 1980-81. The said "relief" sought for is depreciation allowance under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of buses plied by the assessee during the first three months of the previous year in relation to the abovesaid assessment year, that is, from April 1, 1979, to June 30, 1979. The assessee-Hindu undivided family was a bus operator during the said assessment year 1980-81 and was running the buses up to the above said date June 30, 1979. The karta of the Hindu undivided family gave the buses owned by the Hindu undivided family to a firm by name, Barathi Travels, in which he became a partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC) at page 516 : "Our attention has been invited to CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 211 (SC). In that case, the assessee entered into a partnership and as its share of the capital, it transferred its stock of machinery to the partnership firm. This court held that when the assessee made over its machinery to the partnership firm, there was no sale and the assessee did not derive any income. In CIT v. Janab N. Hyath Batcha Sahib [1969] 72 ITR 528 (Mad), the Madras High Court held that when a partner introduces his property into a partnership firm as his contribution to its capital, the transaction does not involve a sale of the property. The High Court, referred to section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and observed : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position explained in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC) based on section 14 of the Partnership Act. However, what he points out is that as per section 32, in order to claim depreciation allowance, the assessee must have been owner of the abovesaid buses, since section 32(1) begins thus : " In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession.... " (emphasis supplied) On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee was admittedly the owner of the above said buses during the previous year, that is, for the period from April 1, 1979, to June 30, 1979. Therefore, he submits that there is no bar to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his business so that the net income (total income) is duly arrived at. Further, the enactment read with the abovesaid rule 5, as it existed at the relevant point of time, goes to the extent of granting such allowance even where the asset in question is used for the purpose of the business at any time "during the previous year". In other words, at the relevant point of time, even if the asset has been used for a single day, in the business of the assessee, depreciation allowance, in full, was given under section 32(1) of the Act. When such is the case, it cannot be said that the assessee cannot be granted the said depreciation allowance if he is not the owner for the entire period of the previous year or if he is not the owner on the last ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
