Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee-company was entitled to depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the building, machinery and plant of the Crown Flour Mills when no registered sale deed had been executed in its favour.
Analysis: Depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) required that the relevant building, machinery or plant must be the property of the assessee and must be used for the business. The use condition was not in dispute. The controversy turned on whether the assessee had ownership. The words "being the property of the assessee" were held to be equivalent to ownership, and the corresponding phrase in section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was treated as confirming that position. A mere interest protected by section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not create ownership or pass title in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 without a registered sale deed.
Conclusion: The assessee-company was not the owner of the Crown Flour Mills during the relevant assessment year and therefore was not entitled to depreciation under section 10(2)(vi).
Ratio Decidendi: For claiming depreciation on immovable assets, the assessee must establish real ownership of the property; a contractual or possessory interest under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is insufficient in the absence of a registered conveyance.