9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owner of the vehicle. The fact that the vehicle is registered in the name of the director of the appellant company does not make any difference, inasmuch as, the registration under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is not conclusive evidence of the ownership of the vehicle. The term ownership under the Motor Vehicle Act is different from the ownership as envisaged under the provisions of section 32 of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd.[ 2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT] . Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Salkia Transport Associates [ 1982 (9) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] held that there is no requirement under the provisions of section 32 that in order to avail the depreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted and the returned income be ordered to be accepted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals), Pune-6 erred in disallowing the extended warranty paid of ₹ 1,30,340/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals), Pune- 6 erred in disallowing the difference as per 26AS amounting to ₹ 8,900/- Appellant craves for leave to add, alter, amend and/or drop from the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under: The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of dealership of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant company, inasmuch as, the repayment of car loan was made by the appellant company as well as it was used in the business of the appellant company. He also submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the appellant company in assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year by the order of this Tribunal in ITA No. 286/PUN/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 dated 31.10.2017. 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities submits that, inasmuch as, the vehicle is held in the name of the director of the appellant company, no depreciation should be allowed. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue raised in the ground of appeal nos. 1 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga, 201 ITR 995 (Bom.-HC). 10. In the light of above legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to the depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the Act inspite of the fact that the vehicle is registered in the name of the director of the appellant company. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation on car and interest paid on car loan. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are hereby reversed on this issue. Thus, the ground of appeal nos. 1 and 2 stands allowed. 11. The ground of appeal nos. 3 and 4 are dismissed as not pressed durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
