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 affirms ITAT ruling allowing depreciation under Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2007-08</h1> <h3>PR. CIT-06 Versus MICROSOFT CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD.</h3> PR. CIT-06 Versus MICROSOFT CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD. - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of car running expenses under section 37(1) of the Act.3. Invocation of principle of Res Judicata.Analysis:1. The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order regarding the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,85,45,102 under section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Revenue argued that the Assessee should not claim depreciation on vehicles due to a car policy where a loan was advanced to employees. The Court found that the Assessee was eligible for depreciation as the vehicles were in the Assessee's ownership, even if employees had an option to purchase them later. The Court rejected the Revenue's contentions, stating that re-characterization of facts cannot be permitted, and declined to frame questions as urged by the Revenue.2. Regarding the disallowance of car running expenses under section 37(1) of the Act, the ITAT did not agree with the Revenue's argument that the expenses were not for the business purposes of the Assessee. The Court noted that the ITAT's decision was consistent with the earlier AY 2006-07 ruling in the Assessee's case. The Court held that mere personal use of vehicles by employees does not render car maintenance expenses non-business related for the Assessee. Consequently, the Court declined to frame a question on this issue, supporting the ITAT's decision.3. The Revenue also raised the issue of invoking the principle of Res Judicata. However, the Court did not find any substantial question of law arising from this issue and dismissed the appeal. The Court's decision was based on the findings that the Assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on vehicles under section 32(1) and that car maintenance expenses were considered for business purposes under section 37(1) of the Act.
TaxTMI 