9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been filed by the similarly situated assessees, therefore, the same are taken up for hearing together. In all proceedings, the Revenue has sought to initiate reassessment proceedings in respect of depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 32 of the the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being taken from I.T.A No. 158 of 2002. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Act arises out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short 'the Tribunal) on 29.04.2002 in respect of assessment year 1995-96. The assessee has claimed the following substantial questions of law:- "1. That whether under the facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar on 18.08.1999 holding that transactions should be treated as finance transactions and not as lease transactions, as claimed by the assessee nor the hire purchase transactions, as held by the Assessing Officer. In further appeal before the Tribunal, a finding was returned that the assessee was not owner of the vehicle and that mere possession under the term of an agreement to purchase, shall not entitle the assessee to depreciation. The Tribunal noticed that in the Registration Certificate, the so called lessor was shown to be the owner of the vehicle and that the insurance has been obtained by individual customers. It has also been noticed that the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t use the asset for the purposes of business. It does not mandate usage of the asset by the assessee itself. As long as the asset is utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee, the requirement of Section 32 would stand satisfied. The Supreme Court held to the following effect. "15. We would like to dispose of the second contention before considering the first. Revenue argued that since the lessees were actually using the vehicles, they were the ones entitled to claim depreciation, and not the assessee. We are not persuaded to agree with the argument. The Section requires that the assessee must use the asset for the purposes of business. It does not mandate usage of the asset by the assessee itself. As long as the asset is utilize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision that creates a legal fiction of ownership in favour of lessee only for the purpose of the MV Act. It defines ownership for the subsequent provisions of the MV Act, not for the purpose of law in general. It serves more as a guide to what terms in the MV Act mean. Therefore, if the MV Act at any point uses the term owner in any Section, it means the one in whose name the vehicle is registered and in the case of a lease agreement, the lessee. That is all. It is not a statement of law on ownership in general. Perhaps, the repository of a general statement of law on ownership may be the Sale of Goods Act; (ii) Section 2(30) of the MV Act must be read in consonance with sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 51 of the MV Act, which were re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
