2021 (7) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce of depreciation of project assets being road and bridge during the assessment years 2002- 2003, 2003-2004, 2004 - 2005 and 2006-2007 by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee is not the owner of the project assets and hence is not eligible for claiming depreciation of such assets. However, taking into account the fact that the entire cost of the project has to be owned by the assessee and such cost has to be recovered from the users of the project by way of toll fees prescribed by the Government, the entire cost was amortized over the period of concession. Since the assessee has claimed huge depreciation more than amortization value for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, notices under Section 148 were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pressway Ltd., reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 96 (SC) has settled the present substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. The relevant portions of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder. "14. In our opinion, the term owned as occurring in Section 32 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must be assigned a wider meaning. Any one in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable other being excluded therefrom and having right to use and occupy the property and/or to enjoy its usufruct in his own right would be the owner of the buildings though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered as contemplated by Transfer of Pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 his own right and is using the same for the purposes of his business or profession. Assigning any different meaning would not subserve the legislative intent. To take the case at hand it is the appellant-assessee who having paid part of the price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of Section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of Section 32 because inspite of its being the legal owne....