Dear Subscriber,
The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
ICICI Bank Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 32: Assessee (Bank) is entitled to depreciation on assets given on lease
In so far as the issue relating to the claim of depreciation on leased transactions is concerned, the Supreme Court in ICDS vs. CIT 350 ITR 527 had the occasion to consider the question "whether the Assessee is entitled to depreciation on vehicles financed by it which is neither owned by the Assessee nor used by the Assessee?" The Supreme Court after perusing the lease agreement and other related factors held that the lessor is the owner of the vehicles. As an owner, it used the assets in the course of its business satisfying both the requirements of S. 32 of the Act and hence is entitled to claim depreciation. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Cosmos Films 338 ITR 266 wherein the Delhi High Court considered the implications of S. 19 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Development Credit Bank Ltd has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Cosmos Films and allowed the claim of depreciation. The Tribunal, Mumbai bench, in the case of L&T has considered a similar issue and followed the findings of the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS and also of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Development Credit Bank Ltd and allowed the claim of depreciation on sale of lease back assets. Considering all these judicial decisions in the light of the facts, we direct the AO to allow depreciation
Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd vs. ADIT (Delhi High Court)
Assessee is bound to furnish a return in response to a s. 148 notice. The reasons for reopening can be given only thereafter. A writ involving disputed factual issues cannot be entertained
(i) The petitioner did not file any returns of income in response to the notices issued u/s 148. Even under the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts 259 ITR 19, the petitioner would get the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment only upon filing the return of income pursuant to the notice issued u/s 148. The conduct of the petitioner has been one of defiance; it did not file returns in response to the notices issued u/s 148. The mere filing of the return can never amount to submitting to the jurisdiction. The filing of the return in response to the notice u/s 148 defines the stand taken by the assessee. S. 148 says that the return called for by the notice issued under that section shall be treated as if such a return were a return required to be furnished u/s 139 of the Act. Under the scheme of the Act, a return of income conveys the position taken by the assessee to the assessing authority – whether he has taxable income or not. It is not a mere scrap of paper. There is a sanctity attached to the return. If the assessing authority calls upon the assessee to file a return of income, the same shall be complied with by the assessee and it is no answer to the notice to say that since in his (assessee's) opinion there is no taxable income, he is under no obligation to file the return. The petitioner, not having made the Noida officer aware that no income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and having merely told him that he has no jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices, was not acting strictly in accordance with law. The writ remedy being a discretionary remedy, the discretion can be exercised in favour of the writ petitioner only if his conduct has been in conformity with law. If it is not, the Court may refuse to exercise the discretion in favour of the writ petitioner;
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
Tax implications of employee secondment contracts explained
No comments:
Post a Comment