https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235039 The court interpreted lease agreements for machinery ownership and depreciation claims, emphasizing that the lessee should not be considered the owner based on the terms of the agreements. Citing legal principles, the court distinguished between hire of machinery and hire purchase agreements. It upheld that the respondent-assessee was a hirer, allowing lease rentals as business expenditure. The decision aligned with prior cases, where the lessor retained ownership during the lease period. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lessee's status as a hirer and the allowability of lease rentals as business expenditure. en-us Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 08:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235039 The court interpreted lease agreements for machinery ownership and depreciation claims, emphasizing that the lessee should not be considered the owner based on the terms of the agreements. Citing legal principles, the court distinguished between hire of machinery and hire purchase agreements. It upheld that the respondent-assessee was a hirer, allowing lease rentals as business expenditure. The decision aligned with prior cases, where the lessor retained ownership during the lease period. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lessee's status as a hirer and the allowability of lease rentals as business expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235039