https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10562 The courts dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant company failed to establish ownership or dominion over the vehicle, as it was registered in the director's name. The court emphasized the necessity of proving both ownership and business use for depreciation claims under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The appellant's argument of dominion over the vehicle was not deemed sufficient, and the claim of depreciation for the vehicle disallowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was upheld. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the case. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10562 The courts dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant company failed to establish ownership or dominion over the vehicle, as it was registered in the director's name. The court emphasized the necessity of proving both ownership and business use for depreciation claims under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The appellant's argument of dominion over the vehicle was not deemed sufficient, and the claim of depreciation for the vehicle disallowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was upheld. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the case. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10562