TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows depreciation for assets not actively used in business operations. Broad interpretation of 'used' under Income-tax Act.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus India Tea And Timber Trading Company</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus India Tea And Timber Trading Company - [1996] 221 ITR 857, 137 CTR 334, 90 TAXMANN 181 Issues Involved: The issues involved in this judgment include the eligibility of depreciation claims for assets not actively used in business operations and the interpretation of the term 'used' in relation to claiming deductions for depreciation under the Income-tax Act, 1961.Eligibility of Depreciation Claims: The case involved a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act that faced a dispute regarding the allowance of depreciation on assets such as factory buildings, plant, machinery, and electric fittings. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation as there was no production of sugar during the year, leading to a net loss. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the depreciation, which was further contested by the Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the allowance of depreciation, emphasizing that even passive use of assets could justify claiming full depreciation as per rules.Interpretation of the Term 'Used': The main contention revolved around the interpretation of the term 'used' in section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act for claiming depreciation. The Revenue argued that deductions were only allowable if the machinery was actively used for business purposes. Conversely, the amicus curiae contended that 'used' could also encompass passive use, such as keeping machinery ready for operation. Various court decisions were cited to support both interpretations, with some courts favoring a broader definition of 'used' to include passive utilization of assets.Court's Decision: After considering the arguments and precedents, the High Court agreed with the broader interpretation of the term 'used' to include passive use. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that even partial or passive use of assets could warrant claiming full depreciation. Consequently, the Court answered questions 2 and 3 in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, affirming the allowance of depreciation on assets that were not actively used throughout the year.Separate Judgment: In a separate judgment, Justice S. B. Roy concurred with the decision reached by Justice D. N. Baruah, supporting the broader interpretation of the term 'used' and the allowance of depreciation based on passive utilization of assets.
TaxTMI 