TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, vide Bill No.00065 dated 3.3.2006. The cost of the case along with Accessories was Rs. 8,06,656/-. The assessee claimed depreciation on the car which has been disallowed by the AO in both the years stating that the company is not the registered owner of the car. 4. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. On page nos.2 to 12-A of the Paper Book, assessee has placed on record schedule of asset, declaration from Shri Suresh Jadavji Shah deposing therein that he has no right, title of interest in his personal capacity over the said car. The resolution of the Board is available on page 6 and the invoice of the car is available on page 7. Repayments of loan are available on pages 8 to 10. The company has repaid the loan. The Director has categorically declared that he has no personal right, title or interest over the car. Thus for all practical purposes the car was owned by the company. The expenses have been debited in the accounts of the company. A similar issue had come up before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. 257 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s income. The assessee has not claimed any depreciation on the same because it was stock-in-trade. 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of revenue authorities below. 12. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The ld. first appellate authority has made a lucid enunciation of law and facts. The finding recorded in paragraph 3.3 on this issue is worth to note. It reads as under :- ''3.3. I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submission. Appellant sold basement office building during the year on which loss was claimed as revenue. The said office premise was shown as capital work in progress in fixed assets in the balance sheet. It is not in dispute that the said asset was not shown as stock in trade in the accounts to claim that it was business asset and not capital asset. Since asset was not stock in trade but capital work in progress the loss on sale of the same is not business loss but capital loss assessable in capital gain head. Appellant's argument that it earned rent on the property which was disclosed as business income is not relevant to treat this pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of G.S.R.T. Corpn. reported in 366 ITR 170. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that if assessee fails to deposit employees' contribution within the due date provided under the P.F. Act then assessee will not be entitled for deduction. Accordingly, the ld. first appellate authority has rightly confirmed the disallowance. This ground of appeal is rejected. 16. Ground Nos. 3 to 5 are inter connected with each other. In these grounds of appeal assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 13,11,225/- out of depreciation claimed on the buildings. The assessee further pleaded that CIT(A) has erred in holding that lease rental income earned from the immovable property and shown as business income is to be assessed as ''income from house property''. The CIT(A) further erred in directing the AO to take remedial action wherever admissible in law for earlier years too. 17. Brief facts of the case are that on scrutiny of the accounts it revealed to the AO that assessee had made several additions in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as resulted to the assessee. As far as the remaining flats are concerned the passive user for the purpose of the business has been established. Because they were also ready for leasing out. Somehow the prospective tenants were not available. The other addition to the property relates to Eternia Complex. The assessee has purchased 8 units on 31st March, 2007. None of the unit was leased out. 20. The stand of the ld. DR on the other hand was, that the income from these properties are to be assessed under the head ''house property income'' and no depreciation can be granted to the assessee. It is stated that specific deduction is available under section 24 of the I.T. Act. 21. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that CIT(A) has erred in observing that the rental income can never be assessed under the head 'house property income' He relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT-1 vs. Prakash Agrihotri 46 Taxmann.com 145 (All). He placed on record a copy of the decision. In this case the assessee owned a shopping mall. He let out a portion of the said mall. He offered the rental income as a business income. ....