2000 (12) TMI 4 - SC - Income Tax

Depreciation claim for mills under s. 32 hinges on ownership: beneficial ownership rejected for lack of dominion; appeal dismissed.

The dominant issue was whether the assessee was 'owner' of the relevant mills for purposes of claiming depreciation under s. 32 and/or development rebate. ... Entitlement to depreciation u/s 32 and/or development rebate as claimed - HELD THAT:- Assessee has placed great emphasis upon the decision of this court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. [1999 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], which has interpreted the word 'owned' in section 32 broadly. It did so in the following circumstances : The assessee before it had purchased certain houses from the Housing Board and had made part payment thereof. It had acquired possession of the houses but the deed of conveyance was not executed until after the financial year in question. Even so, the assessee's claim for depreciation of the buildings, which it had used for the purpose of its business, was upheld on the basis that it had acquired dominion over the buildings. We will assume the correctness of the judgment but', on the facts found, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that the assessee had acquired dominion over the mills in question. There is nothing on the record which indicates this nor is that the finding of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the assessee regarding depreciation and development rebate for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The court emphasized the need for the assessee to have acquired dominion over the assets to claim depreciation. The appeal was dismissed with costs. (Case citation: 2000 (12) TMI 4 - Supreme Court)