9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion is 1973-74. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in armatures, laminations and stampings. For the purpose of this business, for its Bombay office, it purchased a building in Bombay on March 13, 1971. The conveyance deed in respect of that property was, however, not registered in the relevant previous year. The assessee claimed depreciation in respect of the building in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1973-74 and also in the assessment proceedings for the preceding assessment year 1972-73. The claim for depreciation was rejected by the Income-tax Officer for both the assessment years on the ground that the sale deed was not registered and so the assessee did not become the owner of the prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of buildings " owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business ....... .. In R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC), the question for decision before the Supreme Court was whether for the purposes of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the owner must be the person who can exercise the rights of the owner, not on behalf of the owner but in his own right. The property in that case consisted of a hotel in Lahore. After the creation of Pakistan, the property vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property, but technically the assessee continued to be the owner although he had no dominion over, or possession of, the same. The Supreme Court held that the real test was to ascertain whether the assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee for the previous assessment year, this court in R. C. No. 91 of 1978 answered an identical question on August 23, 1984, in favour of the assessee (CIT v. Shahney Steel Press Works (P.) Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 399 (AP)). This court accepted the view of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Steelcrete P. Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 45 and of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation [1981] 127 ITR 97. The same view was taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Kala Rani v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 321. Sri M. S. N. Murthy, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, cited to us a decision of the Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT [1986] 162 ITR 888, in support of his contention, that in orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
