9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame of the Assessee and merely because the employee may be given an option of buying the vehicle from the Assessee at a subsequent point in time at the depreciated value, would not disentitle the Assessee to claim depreciation on the vehicle as long as they continued to be in the ownership of the Assessee. Consequently, the Court declines to frame question nos.1 and 2 as urged by the Revenue. Disallowance of car running expenses u/s 37(1) - Assessee had not discharged its onus u/s 37(1) of the Act that the expenditure was actually laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business - HELD THAT:- Court again finds that the ITAT has not agreed with the contention of the Revenue that the running and maintenance ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee company while ignoring the fact that employee of the Assessee is to be considered as owner of the vehicle for the granting deprecation as per the provisions of the Act? 2.3 Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,28,88,973/- out of car running expenses under section 37(1) of the Act while ignoring that Assessee had not discharged its onus under section 37(1) of the Act that the expenditure was actually laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business 2.4 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in invoking principle of Res Judicata on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. At the outset it is pointed that for the earlier AY 2006-07 a similar question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on relating to car running expenses, the Court again finds that the ITAT has not agreed with the contention of the Revenue that the running and maintenance expenses of the vehicles used by the employees of the Assessee were not for the business purposes of the Assessee. This is consistent with the view that has been adopted by the ITAT in the Assessee s own case for the earlier AY 2006-07. This Court is not persuaded to hold that only because the vehicles were used by the employees for their personal use, the car maintenance expenses would not be for the business purposes of the Assessee. The Court, accordingly, declines to frame the question on this issue. 5. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
