9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Entitlement to depreciation allowance and development rebate under sections 10(2)(vi) and 10(2)(vib) for the assessment year 1957-58 in relation to a bus taken on hire purchase agreement basis. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of the assessee to claim depreciation allowance and development rebate under sections 10(2)(vi) and 10(2)(vib) for the assessment year 1957-58 in connection with a bus held under a hire purchase agreement. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the grounds that the bus was not the property of the assessee during the relevant period. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the reference before the High Court. The Tribunal rejected both claims based on the provisions of the aforementioned sections, emphasizing the requirement that the asset in question must be the property of the assessee for such allowances to be granted. The counsel for the assessee argued that even if the assessee did not own the bus during the relevant year, they should still be entitled to the depreciation allowance and development rebate. However, the High Court found this argument untenable. The Court highlighted that as per section 10(2)(vi), the asset for which depreciation allowance is claimed must be the property of the assessee. Referring to precedent cases, including Jogta Coal Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax, the Court clarified that ownership of the asset is a prerequisite for claiming depreciation allowance. The same ownership requirement was deemed essential for claiming development rebate under section 10(2)(vib). The Court distinguished the cases cited by the assessee's counsel, emphasizing that those cases did not address the specific issue of ownership of the asset for the purposes of claiming depreciation allowance and development rebate. The Court clarified that under a hire purchase agreement, the hirer does not automatically become the owner of the property. Additionally, the Court noted that the circular issued by the income-tax department, which the counsel relied on, pertained to the method of calculating depreciation allowance and did not alter the ownership requirement specified in the law. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in the negative, denying the assessee's claim for depreciation allowance and development rebate due to the lack of ownership of the bus during the relevant period. The department was awarded costs, and the counsel's fee was fixed. The judgment clarified the strict ownership requirement for claiming depreciation allowance and development rebate under the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act. Conclusion: The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized the crucial requirement of ownership for claiming depreciation allowance and development rebate under sections 10(2)(vi) and 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act. The Court rejected the assessee's claim, highlighting that the asset in question must be the property of the assessee to qualify for such allowances. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and precedent cases, clarifying the interpretation of the law in relation to hire purchase agreements and entitlement to tax benefits.
|
