2010 (2) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation on and crates which were supplied to bottling companies manufacturing cold drinks purchase and lease back ITAT allowed 100% depreciation held that matter is remanded back to ITAT with the following question - (i) Whether the Assessees, in order to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Act, ought to have put to use the goods viz. bottles, crates, capacitors, for their business? (ii)Whether the assessees in the present matters are entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Act because they are, according to them, involved in leasing business? matter remanded back

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Assessees must have used the goods for their business to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Act?
2. Are the assessees entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32 because they are involved in leasing business?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main contention in the appeals was regarding the eligibility of the Assessees to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had allowed 100% depreciation in most cases, except one where the Assessee had purchased capacitors and leased them out. The Counsel for the Revenue argued that the Assessees should have used the leased material for their business to claim depreciation, which they did not do. Reference was made to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a similar case. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Assessees contended that the Assessees were entitled to carry out their leasing business, and they had used the purchased material for their business purpose, which was for leasing. The Court observed that the authorities below should have considered whether the leased material was put to use by the Assessees for their business to claim depreciation under Section 32.

Issue 2:
The second issue raised was whether the Assessees, being involved in the leasing business, are entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. The Counsel for the Assessees argued that leasing itself could be considered a business and that the Revenue's contention to disallow depreciation should be rejected. The Court noted that the issue required a detailed analysis of Section 32 of the Act in the context of the facts of the case. It was decided that the matters needed to be remanded to the ITAT for further consideration. The Court framed specific issues to be addressed by the ITAT, directing them to issue notices to the parties, provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing, and pass reasoned orders within six months.

In conclusion, the Court quashed the ITAT's order, remanded the matters back for reconsideration, and clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the issues framed. The appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.