TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance made on account of depreciation claimed under section 32 of the Act of Rs. 21,02,033 made by the assessee. The disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. Hence, the same kindly be deleted in full. (2) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of trip expenses out of Rs. 15,20,280 made by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....because he was not the owner of those trucks. The Assessing Officer categorically mentioned in the assess ment order that the expression 'owner' is a much comprehensive term which denotes the full ownership as per law, i.e., without a valid registered document, the right title and interest would not pass to the assessee. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is consid ered to be fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of depreciation of Rs. 21,02,033 is held to be justified and the same is sustained. The appellant fails on this ground." 2.2 The learned authorised representative has submitted that there is no dispute raised by the Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O. Therefore, the subjected tankers could not be registered immediately in the name of the assessee until the entire loan was paid off but use of the same for business is not denied. Hence, the benefit of depreciation on the ground that the assessee was not a registered owner, cannot be denied. These trucks were purchased in the assessment year 2007-08 wherein also depreciation was claimed and allowed through assessment was completed under section 143(1), however, such assessment has not been disturbed under section 147 or under section 263 and, therefore has become final. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself treated the appellant to be beneficial owner of these trucks. The concept of registered owner is not at all relevant under section 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right and the requirement of registration of sale deed in the context of section 22 is not warranted. 3. Anil Bulk Carriers P. Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 625 (All) held that : 'Fact that registration of the vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was granted on April 1, 1997, was of no relevance as regards the allowability of depreciation. That apart, the word 'used' under section 32 has to be given wider meaning and it will include assets ready for use'." Hence, the impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in full and the assessee be held entitled to the claim of depreciation as made. 2.3 The learned Departmental representative is heard who has submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....depreciation is that registration of vehicles has not been transferred in the name of the appellant under the Motor Vehicles Act. In response, the learned author ised representative has submitted that it has bought the vehicles and have taken over the loan liabilities of the sellers and the vehicles are currently under hypothecation with the bank and as soon as the loan liability is fully discharged, the registration of vehicles would be transferred in his name under the Motor Vehicles Act. Regarding registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, the hon'ble Supreme Court in case of I. C. D. S Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 527 (SC) ; [2013] 29 taxmann.com 129 has held that "the Motor Vehicles Act is not a statement of law on ownership in gener....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowance of Rs. 1,00,000 which has been confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 3.1 The learned authorised representative submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order shall reveal that the various disallowances have been made simply on surmises and conjectures. No specific instance has been given. The contention of the appellant was that details were never mentioned in the accounts or slips, etc. The payments were only at Rs. 1,500 as a fixed allowance per trip to the drivers and helpers to meet the lodging, boarding and other incidental expenses and, therefore, the appellant never accounted for these expenses in the way, the Assessing Officer alleged. The allowances so paid were duly supported by the vouchers....