TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 15.2.1991 and 15.3.1991. The impugned judgment has been rendered in respect of Assessment Year 1991-92 (corresponding to the previous year ending 31.3.1991). (A) Facts Regarding Lease dated 15.2.1991 (Transaction No. I): 3. Before coming to the facts, the following is the relationship between the parties: - M/s Glass & Ceramic Decorators was the manufacturer of soft drink bottles. - Assessee was the `lessor'. - M/s Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. was the `lessee'. 4. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee carried on the business of trading in lamination machines & binding an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed the depreciation claim of the assessee which finding stood confirmed by the impugned judgment, hence this Civil Appeal. 5. At this stage, it may be noted that out of the total claim for depreciation of Rs. 1,80,30,489/- (in respect of both the transactions), as claimed by the assessee, the AO disallowed depreciation of Rs. 18,04,572/- in respect of the First Transaction and depreciation of Rs. 30,17,122 under the Second Transaction. In all, she disallowed depreciation of Rs. 48,21,694/- in the first round. In other words, the AO allowed depreciation in respect of both the transactions amounting to Rs. 1,32,08,795 as against the claim of Rs. 1,80,30,489/-. Findings: 6. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is case the CIT(A) had remitted the matter to the AO who on remand came to the conclusion that all 5,46,000 bottles stood sold before 31.3.1991. This finding of fact has become final. It has not been challenged. Hence, the Department has erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs. 18,04,572/-. (B) Facts Regarding Lease dated 15.3.1991 (Transaction No. II): 8. Before coming to the facts, the relationship of the parties, namely, stated: - Assessee was the `lessor' - M/s Aravali Leasing Ltd. was the `lessee' - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was argued vehemently on behalf of the assessee that the findings given by the AO were perverse. It was urged that the transport charges were, in fact, paid by M/s Unikol Bottlers, who could not produce evidence as there was a lock-out/closure in its factory at the relevant time. According to the assessee, the evidence of the manufacturer, M/s Arizona Printers, clearly shows that bottles were manufactured before 31.3.1991 and they were delivered to M/s Unikol Bottlers directly by them. According to the said evidence of the manufacturer, the transport bills were supposed to be with M/s Unikol Bottlers, who were responsible for payment thereof. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the evidence of M/s A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferent from the concept relating to the nature of the transaction. In this case, the tell-tale circumstance against the assessee was that sub-lease is dated 8.3.1991. It is between M/s Aravali Leasing (lessee) and M/s Unikol Bottlers (sub- lessee). This sub-lease precedes the lease dated 15.3.1991 between the assessee (lessor) and M/s Aravali Leasing (lessee). As rightly questioned by the AO as to how M/s Aravali Leasing (lessee) could have entered into a sub-lease in favour of M/s Unikol bottlers on 8.3.1991 when it had not acquired leasehold rights till 15.3.1991 from the assessee as the lessor. Moreover, there is nothing in the alleged lease deed dated 15.3.1991 indicating commencement of the lease from a prior date. There is nothing in....