9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 738 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on motor car - car purchased in the names of the Directors of the assessee-company - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that though the car has been purchased in the name of the two Directors of the Company, but it is reflected in the balance-sheet of the assessee. We find that on identical facts, on similar issue the Coordinate Bench in the case of Afflon Alpast 2015 (1) TMI 1234 - ITAT AHMEDABAD wherein held that mere non-registration of a vehicle in the name of the company under the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot disentitle it in regard to its claim of depreciation, when the facts on record are undisputed that the assessee company has, in fact, made the investment in purchase of the vehicle and such vehicle is being used for its business. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on cars purchased during the year under consideration. 2. Alleged breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice by lower authorities. 3. Levying interest under sections 234A/B/C/D of the Income Tax Act. 4. Initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Cars: The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of ?2,72,972/- as depreciation on cars purchased during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation on the grounds that the cars were purchased in the names of the Directors, not the company, and there was no proof that the vehicles were used for business purposes. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this disallowance, noting that the company was not the legal owner of the cars and had not demonstrated their use for business purposes. The CIT(A) referenced decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court to support the disallowance, emphasizing that ownership and business use were not established by the company. However, the Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned this decision, citing a precedent from the Coordinate Bench in the case of Aflon Alplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO. The ITAT noted that the car was reflected in the company's balance sheet, and the funds for the purchase were provided by the company. The Tribunal concluded that the claim of depreciation could not be disallowed merely because the car was registered in the names of the Directors, as long as it was used for business purposes and the company had made the investment. 2. Alleged Breach of Law and Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant argued that the lower authorities had erred by not properly appreciating the facts and ignoring various submissions, explanations, and information provided by the appellant. The appellant claimed this was a breach of law and the Principles of Natural Justice. However, this issue was not separately addressed in detail by the Tribunal, as the primary focus was on the disallowance of depreciation. 3. Levying Interest under Sections 234A/B/C/D: The appellant contested the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the AO's action of levying interest under sections 234A/B/C/D of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment, as the primary contention was regarding the depreciation disallowance. 4. Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The appellant also challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the AO's initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Similar to the interest levying issue, the Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis or separate judgment on this matter, focusing instead on the depreciation issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, concluding that the disallowance of depreciation was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that the company's investment in the car and its use for business purposes were sufficient grounds to claim depreciation, regardless of the car being registered in the names of the Directors. The Tribunal's decision was based on precedents and the factual matrix of the case, supporting the appellant's claim for depreciation.
|
