2016 (2) TMI 523

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for purposes of its business of leasing. Both in ICDS (Supra) and this case, the respondent is in the business of leasing. Thus, claim of depreciation is allowable - Decided in favour of assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 2298 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Pinto For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah ORDER P. C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 29th April, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. Mr. Pinto, the learned Counsel for the Revenue urges only the following question of law fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he transaction entered into by the respondent assessee with HSEB under Agreement dated 29th September, 1995 were genuine as the assets were very much available / in existence. Thus, the claim on depreciation is allowable. In fact the CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, rendered for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98, in identical fact situation to that of the respondent assessee's case consequently he held himself bound by the decision of the Tribunal and followed the same to allow the claim of the respondent assessee to depreciation. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the present facts. The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case ICDS (Supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in ICDS (Supra) held that the Assessee was in the business of leasing of vehicles and not hire purchase. The Apex Court in ICDS (Supra) has held that for claim of depreciation to be allowed, the condition precedent are ownership of the assets and user for purposes of business i.e. not usage of the assets by the Assessee itself but for purposes of its business of leasing. Both in ICDS (Supra) and this case, the respondent is in the business of leasing. Thus, claim of depreciation is allowable. In fact, the Revenue has not even attempted to show that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X