1992 (7) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 45,000 aggregate of the two properties being Rs. 90,000). The learned CIT erred in holding that the new motor vehicle is not supposed to be brought on road in public before it is registered with the Registration Authority and consequently erred in holding that the user of the matador is not proved, and further erred in confirming the disallowance of the depreciation of Rs. 26,697 on matador". 2. Assessee filed the return on 30th June, 1983 declaring total income at Rs. 1,03,540. Assessee is a dealer in timber, cement, tractors, furniture, etc. At the time of framing the assessment order, assessee declared rent income from two bungalows at Rs. 38,400. This is also adopted as ALV. In the previous year assessee himself declared ALV at R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 10,000 as reduction while confirming the order of ITO. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The same is, therefore, confirmed. 5. The second effective ground is against the depreciation disallowance amounting to Rs. 26,697. The facts leading to the dispute are as under: Assessee firm purchased a matador on 24th Oct., 1982 i.e. just before two days of the dissolution of the firm. This vehicle was registered in the office of the RTO on 26th Oct., 1982. The ITO disallowed the claim for depreciation on the ground that legally the appellant was not entitled to make use of the said vehicle before its registration. 6. Aggrieved by the above disallowance, the assessee went in appeal before th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the lorries having purchased and taken delivery on 19th Oct., 1975. Thus, in our view, the assessee is entitled for depreciation under s. 32 on the two lorries. 8. In CIT vs. Salkia Transport Associates (1983) 33 CTR (Cal) 198 : (1983) 143 ITR 39 (Cal), the Calcutta High Court held that there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act which requires registration of motor vehicles in the name of the person for the purpose of acquisition of ownership of the vehicle without registration. Registration is not an essential prerequisite for acquisition of ownership of motor vehicle but is an obligation cast upon the owner of a vehicle for the purpose of running of the vehicle in any public place. Thus, it was held that the buses were owned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X