TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red deed of conveyance ? " The facts relevant for appreciating the question are as follows : The assessment year involved in the case is 1986-87. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on September 15, 1986. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment under section 143(3), allowed depreciation on the buildings, viz., (1) Makar Bhavan, Bombay, (2) Blue Garden, Bombay, and (3) Sangam Apartment, Bombay. The total depreciation allowed on the three buildings was Rs. 4,65,572. The Commissioner of Income-tax, however, considered that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was to the prejudice of the Revenue and, therefore, made an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act revoking the same by taking the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Allahabad High Court meant, was a document of title---that title must have passed to the person claiming the benefit in the manner the law requires it to be. If an assessee is the person using a property otherwise also it can get its benefit. The court held that an assessee is nothing but the owner for the purpose of section 32 of the Act even if it is not the owner enjoying the lawful title by obtaining a document. The Calcutta High Court was called upon to consider a similar controversy In the case of Madgul Udyog v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 484. The Calcutta High Court agreed with the decision of the Allahabad High Court as above and also relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC) and expressing our respectful agreement with the view taken by another Division Bench of this court in R. C. No. 91 of 1978, dated August 23, 1984---CIT v. Shahney Steel and Press Works (P.) Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 399, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, There shall be no order as to costs. " Learned counsel for the Department contended that in none of the decisions mentioned above, the submission which was to the effect that the person can be an owner only when he is legally competent to dispose of the property and execute the conveyance, was taken into consideration. It is true that the submission of the Revenue as made before us was not consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
