https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174399 Sale-cum-lease back transactions were held not to be sham or colourable devices where the machinery and electrical equipment were identified, consideration had been received, and symbolic delivery under the agreements was treated as valid delivery for movable goods. The Tribunal's finding that the arrangements were entered into at arm's length to raise funds at a lower rate, and that no lack of genuine consideration was shown, was not found perverse. In that factual setting, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the lease rent claim and deleting the Assessing Officer's additions. The discussion also referred to Explanation 4A to Section 43(1) as a provision aimed at curbing higher depreciation claims in sale and re-acquisition type arrangements. en-us Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174399 Sale-cum-lease back transactions were held not to be sham or colourable devices where the machinery and electrical equipment were identified, consideration had been received, and symbolic delivery under the agreements was treated as valid delivery for movable goods. The Tribunal's finding that the arrangements were entered into at arm's length to raise funds at a lower rate, and that no lack of genuine consideration was shown, was not found perverse. In that factual setting, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the lease rent claim and deleting the Assessing Officer's additions. The discussion also referred to Explanation 4A to Section 43(1) as a provision aimed at curbing higher depreciation claims in sale and re-acquisition type arrangements. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174399