2021 (7) TMI 999

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s filed the above appeal. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of infrastructural facilities and developed a bye-pass road bridge in Coimbatore. The assessee has claimed depreciation on road/bridge. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee is not entitled for depreciation on road/bridge, since the assessee itself amortized the cost of the road/bridge over the construction period of 30/20 years and denied the claim of the assessee. Challenging the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax directed the Assessing OFficer to allow the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved over the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. GVK Jaipur Expressway 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 exe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure in enacting Section 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 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 becaus....