Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
