Binding precedent controlled depreciation transfer and property income treatment, with repairs allowance available on the facts.

Earlier binding precedent on the same assessee governed both referred questions. For depreciation, transfer of buildings, plant and machinery by the Government was accepted without insisting on registration of the conveyance deed, and the issue was decided for the assessee. For the Service Corporation, Guindy, letting receipts were treated as income from property, with allowance of one-sixth of the annual letting value towards repairs on the facts, even though the assessee was not the building owner. Both questions were therefore answered consistently with the prior decision in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether registration of the conveyance deed was required for transfer of buildings, plant and machinery by the Government to the assessee for allowing depreciation; and (ii) whether income from letting out the Service Corporation, Guindy, was assessable as income from property with allowance of 1/6th of the annual letting value towards repairs despite the assessee not being the owner of the building.

Issue (i): Whether registration of the conveyance deed was required for transfer of buildings, plant and machinery by the Government to the assessee for allowing depreciation.

Analysis: The questions were covered by an earlier decision on the same assessee, which was treated as squarely applicable. On that basis, the transfer was accepted for depreciation purposes without requiring registration of the conveyance deed.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether income from letting out the Service Corporation, Guindy, was assessable as income from property with allowance of 1/6th of the annual letting value towards repairs despite the assessee not being the owner of the building.

Analysis: The earlier binding decision was followed and the character of the income was held to be income from property, with the corresponding repairs allowance being available on the facts.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered in favour of the assessee, leaving the Revenue unsuccessful on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts are covered by an earlier binding decision, the same reasoning governs the reference and the questions must be answered consistently with that precedent.

---