2013 (7) TMI 197 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation on rented machine - substantial transfer of ownership - Held that - Assessee had no right to transfer or alienate the machinery in any form, was obliged to re-deliver the equipment upon termination of lease agreement, was not to part with possession and not to make alteration in the equipment with the stipulation that additions would belong to the lessor; and the lessor was entitled to claim depreciation during the lease period. Looking to the explicit terms and stipulations, the findings of the AO about so-called substantial transfer of ownership though apparent non-transfer of title, in our view, could not have been countenanced and have rightly been reversed by the Appellate Authority - No interference in the findings on the mixed question of law and facts as rendered by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal is called for - Following decision of CIT Vs. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. 1998 (3) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of lease agreements for machinery ownership and depreciation claims.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment in question involves the interpretation of lease agreements concerning machinery ownership and depreciation claims. The court referred to a prior decision where it was established that the ownership of machinery remained with the lessor company, not the lessee, based on the terms of the lease agreements. The court emphasized that once the agreements were deemed genuine, the lessee should not be treated as the owner of the machinery. The legal principles from a Supreme Court case were cited to support this interpretation, distinguishing between hire of machinery and hire purchase agreements.

Furthermore, the court discussed another case where the lessor was considered the owner of the trucks during the lease period, and depreciation benefits were granted accordingly. The court highlighted that the lessee had no right to transfer or alienate the machinery and that the lessor was entitled to claim depreciation during the lease period. Based on these terms and conditions, the court concluded that the lessee should not be considered the owner of the machinery, and the lease rent should be allowed as revenue expenditure.

Additionally, the judgment referenced a previous decision where the lessor claimed depreciation as the owner of the machinery, leading to the hirer being entitled to claim hire charges as revenue expenditure. In the present case, after examining the evidence, the court found the respondent-assessee to be essentially a hirer, and therefore, upheld the findings of the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal regarding the allowability of lease rentals as business expenditure.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent-assessee was a hirer based on the terms of the lease agreements, and therefore, the lease rentals were allowable as business expenditure. The decision was based on the principles established in prior cases and the specific terms of the lease agreements, emphasizing the distinction between ownership and hire arrangements for machinery.