9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of ownership of a building for depreciation claim under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the ownership of a building for the purpose of claiming depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a lessee of a building, had constructed the third floor and claimed depreciation on the additions and alterations made by them. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had disallowed the claim based on reasons provided in earlier orders. However, upon further appeal to the Tribunal, it was held that the assessee was the owner of the third floor and entitled to depreciation on it. The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to determine the quantum of depreciation allowed for the third floor. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax requested the Tribunal to state a case and refer questions to the High Court, which resulted in the single question of whether the building constructed by the assessee was owned by them for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal's order indicated that the assessee, as per the terms of the lease, had the right to make additions and alterations to the building and was obligated to restore it to its original condition upon lease expiry. The Tribunal concluded that during the lease period, the assessee was the owner of the superstructures, including the third floor, and thus entitled to claim depreciation under section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that ownership, even if temporary, does not contradict the concept of ownership in law. The High Court noted that the lessee's ownership of the third floor, as determined by the Tribunal, aligned with the terms of the lease and the legal principles regarding ownership. The High Court emphasized that the lessee's ownership of the building's third floor, as per the lease terms, made them eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Act. The Court referenced a similar case before the Mysore High Court to support the concept that a lessee can be considered the owner of a building during the lease period if the ownership aligns with the terms of the lease agreement. The Court highlighted that in commercial settings, it is not uncommon for lessees to have ownership rights over specific portions of buildings, as seen in cities like Bombay and Delhi. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the building's third floor was owned by them and depreciation claim under section 32 was valid. The judgment concluded by stating that the assessee was entitled to depreciation for the third floor and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
