Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The assessee, an individual sole proprietor, claimed depreciation on a car registered in her husband's name but funded by her business. While the assessee may be treated as the owner satisfying the first condition u/s 32, she failed to provide evidence like logbooks or travel details to prove the car was used for business purposes as required by the second condition. Despite being allowed to claim motor car expenses u/s 37, depreciation u/s 32 was denied as the assessee could not substantiate the business usage of the car. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled against the assessee's claim for depreciation.
The assessee, an individual sole proprietor, claimed depreciation on a car registered in her husband's name but funded by her business. While the assessee may be treated as the owner satisfying the first condition u/s 32, she failed to provide evidence like logbooks or travel details to prove the car was used for business purposes as required by the second condition. Despite being allowed to claim motor car expenses u/s 37, depreciation u/s 32 was denied as the assessee could not substantiate the business usage of the car. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled against the assessee's claim for depreciation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
