TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een placed before this Bench on a reference by the Division Bench, First, a few facts. On 22nd Nov., 1974, the respondent-assessee entered into an agreement and took over the assets and liabilities of M/s Abrol Engineering Company. It paid a consideration of Rs.2,87,969. The land standing in the name of the vendor was mutated in the Revenue records in the name of the assessee-company. However, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the building although the transfer of the building was not effected by means of a registered instrument". The case was placed before a Division Bench of this Court. Their Lordships vide order dt. 14th Aug., 1997, referred it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the fact that a registered document of conveyance had not been executed. The Bench also noticed that in CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. & Ors. (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 67: (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC): TC S40.3564, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had considered the provisions of s. 22 of the Act. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Podar Cement related to the interpretation of s. 22 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was held that "the intention of the legislature in enacting s. 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time being vests the dominion over the building and who, is entitled to use it in Its own right and is using the same for the purposes of his business or profession. Assigning any different meaning would not subserve t....