https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66542 Depreciation under section 32(1) was confined to an assessee who is the owner of the asset, so a fractional or partial owner of plant and machinery could not claim the allowance on that basis. The Tribunal treated the Supreme Court ruling on ownership as binding and rejected the argument that the earlier statutory wording was materially wider. Because the original grant of depreciation was contrary to that legal position, its withdrawal was treated as rectification of a mistake apparent from the record under section 154 and was upheld in favour of the Revenue. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:48:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66542 Depreciation under section 32(1) was confined to an assessee who is the owner of the asset, so a fractional or partial owner of plant and machinery could not claim the allowance on that basis. The Tribunal treated the Supreme Court ruling on ownership as binding and rejected the argument that the earlier statutory wording was materially wider. Because the original grant of depreciation was contrary to that legal position, its withdrawal was treated as rectification of a mistake apparent from the record under section 154 and was upheld in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66542