TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the motor car was registered in the name of the individual Di rector and not the appel lant -company, wi thout appreciating in right perspective the fact that the cost of the motor car was paid by the appel lant -company and the motor car was really and benef icially owned by the appellantcompany and it was, as a matter of fact, used wholly and exclusively for the appellant's business, and disregarding/not appreciating the direct judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court and the Tribunal cited by the appellant. The appellant prays that since the appellant's case is squarely covered by a plethora of direct judicial decisions, the disallowance of depreciat ion of Rs. 2,55,051/ - on motor car be deleted and depreciation be allowed to the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appel lant prays Your Honours to grant such other and/or further and/or consequential reliefs as may be deemed f it and as per law. The appe l lant c rav e s leav e to add to , al te r , amend o r withdraw all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... days during the year under consideration, the assessee had thus claimed 50% depreciation on the same, but however, the A.O had wrongly disallowed the depreciation for the full financial year. The CIT(A) taking cognizance of the said contention of the assessee, restricted the disallowance of depreciation to the amount claimed by the assessee, i.e Rs. 2,55,051/-. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. That during the course of the hearing of the appeal it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee that the respective payments for the purchase of the motor car were paid by the assessee company. The ld. A.R in order to fortify his aforesaid contention took us through his 'Paper book', wherein the respective payments made from the bank account of the assessee stood reflected. That it was further submitted by the ld. A.R that as the motor car was registered in the name of the director, therefore, the A.O on the said stand alone basis had disallowed the claim of depreciation rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder to drive home his aforesaid contention that the assessee stood duly entitled towards claim of depreciation on the motor car, also relied on the order passed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Edwise Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 44 ITR (Trib) 0236 (Mumbai), wherein the Tribunal adjudicating on the issue involving the same facts as are there before us in the present appeal, had held as under: "23. The next issue relates to the disallowance of depreciation. The assessing officer disallowed the depreciation claim made on the cars only for the reason that the vehicles stood in the name of the directors and hence the assessee cannot be considered to be the legal owner. The Ld A.R submitted that the funds for purchase of cars were provided by the assessee company and the vehicles have been accounted as the assets of the assessee company only. He further submitted that the registration is only a formality and the same would not disentitle the assessee from claiming depreciation, even if it is registered in the name of its directors. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) Poddar cements Ltd (226 ITR 625) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02) 257 ITR 88)(Del), as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Aravali Finlease Ltd (2012)341 ITR 282 (Guj). The ld. A.R in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts submitted that now when as per the settled position of law the assessee company was duly entitled towards claim of depreciation, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the lower authorities had erred in dislodging the claim of depreciation of the assessee, which was well in order. Per contra, the ld. D.R relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee till date had not been able to place on record as to what had compelled it to purchase the vehicle in the name of the director, as against its own name. It was thus averred by the ld. D.R that as the director of the assessee company was not the owner of the motor car, therefore, the lower authorities had rightly held that the assessee was not entitled towards the claim of depreciation on the same. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the fac....