9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Disallowance of depreciation on car and jeep for personal use by family members
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which upheld the disallowance of one-third of the claim for depreciation on a car and jeep due to personal use by trust members. 2. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed a portion of the claim based on an estimate of personal use by trust members, invoking section 38(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant argued that as per section 32 and rule 5, full depreciation should be allowed if assets are used for business purposes at any time during the previous year. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that section 38(2) restricts the allowance of depreciation based on the assets' business use. 5. The appellant contended that the Madras High Court decision in a similar case supported their argument that no part disallowance of depreciation should occur. 6. The Tribunal found the Madras High Court decision not directly applicable to the present case due to differing facts. 7. The Madras High Court decision involved assets wholly used for business, unlike the present case where assets were partly used for non-business purposes. 8. The Tribunal emphasized that the assets in the present case were not wholly used for business due to personal use by trust members, justifying the disallowance of part depreciation. 9. Referring to Justice Bhagwati's observations, the Tribunal stressed the importance of relating judicial decisions to specific facts, making the Madras High Court decision inapplicable due to material differences. 10. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to disallow part depreciation under section 38(2) based on the assets' partial non-business use, dismissing the appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed the disallowance of part depreciation on the car and jeep due to personal use by trust members, in line with the provisions of section 38(2) and the specific facts of the case.
|
