1977 (7) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....suance of the terms of that agreement, Rs. 7,00,000 were paid by the assessee to the owner as part of the sale consideration against the total sale price fixed at Rs. 7,50,000. It is also not disputed that the possession of the property was handed over to the assessee in pursuance of the said agreement. The assessee started running the cinema and claimed in his annual return depreciation in respect of the building, machinery, etc., for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. The assessing authority disallowed the said depreciation on the ground that the assessee had not become the " owner " of the assets, because no deed of conveyance was either executed or registered in favour of the assessee. The order of the ITO was, however, upheld in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n P. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 455 have decided the question against the assessee, but according to Mr. H. M. Parekh, that judgment of the Delhi High Court is not binding on this court and since there is no direct decision of the Supreme Court or of this court on the point involved in these cases, the question of law raised by the assessee should in all fairness be referred to and answered by this court. Mr. S. K. Mal Lodha, appearing on behalf of the revenue, referred to certain cases of some other High Courts, which have a direct bearing on the question raised by the assessee, but he could not point out any judgment of the Supreme Court, except the two judgments referred to in the order of the Tribunal which according to him may resolve the ....