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>Appellate Tribunal grants review of ownership issue for depreciation claim, emphasizing justice over procedural rules.</h1> <h3>Bhilai Engg. Corpn. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax.</h3> Bhilai Engg. Corpn. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. - ITD 081, 282, TTJ 075, 505, Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the condonation of delay in filing a miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the determination of ownership for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Act.Condonation of Delay:The Appellate Tribunal was petitioned to rectify a mistake in the order dated 11th August, 1997, beyond the prescribed period of four years under u/s 254(2). The delay of 19 days was attributed to the counsel, and it was contended that there existed a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, condoned the delay, emphasizing that justice should not be subservient to procedural rules.Ownership for Depreciation Claim:The assessee, a registered Company, purchased a flat but did not execute a registered sale deed by the end of the relevant year. Consequently, the Assessing Officer denied depreciation, stating that the assessee was not the legal owner. The Tribunal upheld this decision, distinguishing the case law relied upon by the assessee regarding ownership under different sections of the Act.The Tribunal observed that the concept of ownership, as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., is crucial for claiming depreciation u/s 32. The term 'owned' in section 32(1) should be interpreted broadly, encompassing possession and control over the property, even without a formal deed of title. The Tribunal, guided by legal principles and precedents, concluded that the assessee did not meet the ownership criteria for depreciation claim.Rectification Based on Supreme Court Decision:The Tribunal, considering the decision in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd., held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions can form the basis for rectification of orders. Citing various legal precedents, including the principle of adhering to settled law, the Tribunal decided to rectify its order to align with the Supreme Court's interpretation of ownership for depreciation claims. The matter was referred to a Division Bench for further consideration in line with the Supreme Court's ruling.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee, condoning the delay in filing and directing a review of the ownership issue for depreciation claim in accordance with the Supreme Court's interpretation.
TaxTMI 