TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2013-14, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first appeal, confirming the disallowance made by learned assessing officer against the assessee's claim of depreciation. 2. The brief facts related to this appeal state that the appellant assessee filed original return of income on 28.09.2013 for A.Y. 2013-14, declaring total income of Rs. 17,19,890/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and an assessment order u/s. 143 (3) of the Act was passed on 07.12.2015 by accepting the return of income. Subsequently, the case was reopened to verify the claim of depreciation of asset, being car. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard learned representative for the assessee and learned DR for the revenue. 5. The main point of determination under appeal is as to whether the appellant assessee is entitled for the claim of depreciation on the purchase of new car for the year under consideration? 6. Learned representative for the appellant assessee has argued that the car was though, purchased in the name of assessee's husband Mr. Chetan Nayyar, the price of the car was paid by the assessee. It was further argued that the car was in the use of assessee's business. The assessee was thus entitled for depreciation on the said car. The assessee has referred following case law in support of his arguments:- a) Mysore Minerals Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1999] 239 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d car was purchased by the assessee in the name of her husband Mr. Chetan Nayyar out of assessee's funds. Learned assessing officer disallowed assessee's claim of depreciation on the ground that the car was neither owned by the assessee nor was used for the purposes of the assessee's business. Learned CIT(A) has concurred with the assessment order. 9. Let's now examine the case law referred by the assessee. 9.1 In Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a case when the assessee is in possession of building used for the purpose of business on part payment of price and the building is not registered in assessee's name. In such a case, the assessee shall be treated to be the owner of the building for the purpose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he entire fund for the purchase of the vehicle had also gone from the coffers of the company, hence, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A), allowing depreciation on the vehicle registered in the names of persons other than the assessee. 9.6 In Basti Sugar Mills Ltd., (Supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has relied Mirza Ataullaha Baig (Supra) and held that where the car was utilized by the company for business purpose but no registration was done in its name, then assessee company would still be entitled to depreciation on such vehicle being used for assessee's business. 9.7 In Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra), Ahemdabad Bench of the Tribunal has referred and relied Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) and Mysore Min....