9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT] and it has been held that the assessee is entitled to benefit of depreciation on leased assets under Section 32 of the Act. Thus, the questions of law involved in the appeal are no longer res integra and are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in I.C.D.S. The Supreme Court in RADHASOAMI SATSANG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [ 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] has held that even though principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings, but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different Assessment Years has been found as the fact one way or the other and the parties have allowed the position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the grounds urged, the Tribunal was right in holding that the lease is in the nature of a finance lease and that therefore it is the lessee who is the de facto owner of the leased equipment who is entitled to claim depreciation and not the Appellant? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee earned lease rentals from certain assets being equipments which were leased out to various persons in 2003-04. In terms of the lease agreements entered into by the lessees, the assessee was the owner of the equipments and the lessees had no right or interest in the equipments during or after the period of lease. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2004-05, in which deduction to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g reliance on its aforesaid order for the Assessment Year 2003-04, by an order dated 25.02.2019 took the similar view in favour of the assessee. It is also pointed out that being aggrieved by the order passed by the tribunal in respect of Assessment Year 2003-04, the revenue has filed an appeal, a copy of which produced for our perusal and it was pointed out that no ground with regard to claim of assessee for deduction under Section 32 of the Act has been taken in the aforesaid appeal. In other words, it is pointed out that the revenue has accepted the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 32 of the Act on depreciation on assets which were leased out for the Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04. It is also urged that in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts to the equipment can be made by the lessee without prior consent from the assessee. Thus, the assessee alone can claim the depreciation allowance. The aforesaid clauses have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in I.C.D.S. Ltd. supra and it has been held that the assessee is entitled to benefit of depreciation on leased assets under Section 32 of the Act. Thus, the questions of law involved in the appeal are no longer res integra and are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in I.C.D.S. Ltd. supra. 7. For yet another reason the substantial questions of law have to be answered in favour of the assessee. The Supreme Court in RADHASOAMI SATSANG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1992) 60 TAXMAN 248 (SC) has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
