9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are not pressed. The same are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ground No.1 of appeal relates to the disallowance of depreciation on car amounting to Rs. 11,75,823/- on the ground that the car is in the name of the Director. 4. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the appellant has claimed depreciation on vehicle being Audi Q7, purchased in the name of Shri Devkinandan Gopiram Agarwal being the Director of the assessee company. While adjudicating the issue in order to ascertaining whether the car was put to use for the business of the company, the assessee was requested to furnish explanation with the copy of log book whereupon it was replied that the car is being used by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se made out by the assessee, it was further submitted by the Ld. AO that the interest on car loan and the insurance expenses were allowed. Therefore, the question of disallowance of the depreciation on the car is not warranted. He finally relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Asian Mills (P.) Ltd., reported in [2022] 135 taxmann.com 163 (Gujarat). 7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 9. On the narrated facts, we have further considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held as under: "It is well-settled that there cannot be two owners of the property simultaneously and in the same sense of the term. The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same for the purpose of his business or profession. Assigning any different meaning would not subserve the legislative intent." 4.3.1 Further, the Ahmedabad I.T.A.T. in the case of Ambuja Synthetics Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. the Dy. C.I.T., Range-1, Ahmedabad, on similar facts, decided the issue in favour of the assessee, by holding. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rightly distinguished the concept of dominion ownership of the car. The question raised is answered accordingly." 10. In fact, in the case in hand before us, it is also not a disputed fact that the purchase of a car was made by the appellant company which is also reflected in the books of account of the appellant company and therefore it can be well said that the car is commercially used for the purpose of business of the company and the depreciation thereon cannot be denied; more so, the interest on car loan and car insurance was allowed by the department. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter, we find that the appellant's case is squarely covered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Asian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
