<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (6) TMI 95 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234270</link>
    <description>A leasing finance company is entitled to depreciation on vehicles leased to customers where, for income-tax purposes, it remains the owner of the assets and the vehicles are employed in its business. Physical operation by the lessee does not defeat the user requirement under section 32; what matters is business use by the assessee through the leasing activity. Registration and insurance consistent with ownership supported that position, and the Motor Vehicles Act fiction did not override ownership under tax law. The later Supreme Court ruling on the same issue was applied, so the lessor qualified for depreciation and the alternative issue did not require adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 95 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234270</link>
      <description>A leasing finance company is entitled to depreciation on vehicles leased to customers where, for income-tax purposes, it remains the owner of the assets and the vehicles are employed in its business. Physical operation by the lessee does not defeat the user requirement under section 32; what matters is business use by the assessee through the leasing activity. Registration and insurance consistent with ownership supported that position, and the Motor Vehicles Act fiction did not override ownership under tax law. The later Supreme Court ruling on the same issue was applied, so the lessor qualified for depreciation and the alternative issue did not require adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>