9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to dispose of these appeals by this common order. 2. The assessee has taken five grounds of appeal in each assessment year. However, its grievance revolves around two issues viz. (a) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,70,294/- and Rs. 1,71,784/- being 10% of following expenses in the Asstt.Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively: Particulars A.Y. 2009-10 A.Y2010-11 Administrative Expenses 79,553 76,952 Travelling Expenses 40,714 27,369/- Conveyance Expenses 50,027 Telephone expenses 24,745/- Motor Car Expenses 42,718/- Total 1,70,294 1,71,784 and (b) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 5,50,334/- and Rs. 7,88,506/- claimed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee on both the issues i.e. adhoc disallowance out of various expenditure as well as disallowance of depreciation. The finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) reads as under: "A perusal of the above order of Hon'ble High Court indicates that as far as ownership of motor cars is concerned, depreciation is admissible to an assessee even if the said car is not registered in the name of such assessee but has been used for the purposes of assessee's business. It is seen that there is a slight distinction between the facts of the case decided by Hon'ble High Court and those existing in the present appeal In the case before Hon'ble High Court, the relationship between the owners in whose name motor cars were registered and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion made by the AO of Rs. 5,50,334/- on account of depreciation and Rs. 1,70,294/- on account of personal element in certain business expenses is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised are dismissed." 4. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on motor car amounting to Rs. 5,50,334/- in A.Y.2009-10 and Rs. 7,88,506/-. We find that the ld.AO took note of registration number of cars and observed that these cars were registered in the names of directors and shareholders. He construed that cars were not used by the assessee, and therefore, it is not entitled for depreciation. Before the ld.CIT(A) it was contended that even if the car is not registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ld.CIT(A) extracted (supra) would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) in principle concurred with the assessee that the depreciation would be admissible to the assessee, even if the cars are not registered in the name of the company. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the denial of depreciation on non-establishment of their user for the purpose of business. It is pertinent to observe that it is highly difficult to bring demonstrative evidence before the AO showing exclusive user of the cars for the business of the assessee. In the given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of the AO. The ld.AO shall find out if the cost of purchase is borne by the company, then it will be construed that de facto vehicle is owned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
