2002 (5) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that depreciation on a vehicle which is not registered in the name of the assessee was an allowable deduction in the hands of the assessee? we are of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of depreciation on a vehicle not registered in the name of the assessee.

Analysis:
The High Court of Delhi was tasked with determining whether depreciation on a vehicle not registered in the name of the assessee was an allowable deduction. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee based on precedents and case law, including decisions such as CIT v. Salkia Transport Associates, Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Baggar, and CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig. The Tribunal held that registration of the vehicle was not a prerequisite for legal ownership, especially since the vehicle in question was a movable asset. The court concurred with this interpretation and ruled in favor of the assessee, citing the authoritative pronouncements mentioned.

In another aspect of the case, the court addressed the matter of remuneration claimed by the managing director. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the remuneration, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim, considering it justified based on previous assessments. The Tribunal upheld this decision, aligning with its earlier orders. The court found no reason to interfere with this aspect of the case, given the consistency in the treatment of similar claims.

Regarding the consumption of lubricants at the Basti and Waltergang units, the Income-tax Officer raised objections, deeming the claimed expenditure excessive. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reviewed the details and production history, ultimately deleting the additional amount disallowed. The Tribunal, in line with the Commissioner's decision and previous orders, upheld the deletion of the disallowed expenditure. The court considered this issue a factual finding and found no question for reference.

The judgment also delved into the matter of pension payment made to Smt. Satwant Narang, wife of a former director of the company. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had differing views on the allowability of this payment. The Tribunal, referring to its previous order, allowed the claim of the assessee. The court, consistent with the Tribunal's decision, rejected the reference application of the Revenue, emphasizing the factual nature of the issue.

In conclusion, the High Court of Delhi resolved the issues raised in the references made by the Revenue under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment provided detailed analysis and relied on legal precedents to decide on the allowability of depreciation, remuneration claims, expenditure disallowance, and pension payments, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on established legal principles and case law.