Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Oriental Leasing Co. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 6 November, 1992

Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Hero Honda Finlease Ltd. on 5 March, 2008

8. However, as to which document was specifically before the AO or the CIT(A) in the present proceedings, it is seen has not been clarified. Accordingly, in the circumstances, it seen that whereas the claim of the assessee was rejected by the AO for specific reasons without presumably actually examining the documents available on record, however, the CIT(A) it is seen proceeds to decide the issue on the basis of finding in the first appellate order for 1996-97 assessment year in assessee's own case and the order of the Delhi Bench in the cases of Oriental Leasing Co. v. Dy. CIT, dt. 6th Nov., 1992 [reported at -- Ed.] and Pariwar Finance & Investment Ltd. in ITA No. 1460/Del/1995, dt. 23rd Sept., 1997. Thus, the specific facts have not been addressed by him in the case of the assessee and the specific reason given by the AO has also been left unaddressed. Accordingly, in these circumstances, we are of the view that it would be appropriate in the circumstances to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to specifically address the various documents placed by the assessee and the specific reason brought out by the AO for disallowing the claim of the assessee. From a perusal of the certificate appended by the assessee in its paper book, we are unable to state as to which document was placed before which authority. Without going into the technicalities of this, we would merely direct the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal by way of a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Newdeal Finance & Investment Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 10 September, 1999

19. According to the decision of the Apex Court in First Leasing Co. of India Ltd.'s case (supra), as had been already extracted elsewhere in this order, the assessee, the leasing company is to be considered as the owner of the leased assets and once the assessee is the owner of the assets, it is eligible for depreciation. In this case each of the meters was costing less than Rs. 5,000 and hence the assessee had claimed 100 per cent depreciation on each of the meters as provided in the depreciation schedule to the Income Tax Rules. We do not find any illegality in this claim of the assessee because once the assessee is to be considered as the owner of the assets, the assessee-company is eligible for the allowances under the Income Tax Act, namely depreciation according to the depreciation schedule incorporated to the Income Tax Rules. Once the assessee had claimed depreciation so long as the same is according to the depreciation schedule under the Income Tax Rules, the same is to be allowed as we have already held that the assessee is the owner of the assets and is eligible for depreciation on the lines of the decision of the Apex Court. In the light of the above discussions, we are inclined to allow the claim of the assessee as regards depreciation in a sum of Rs. 75,00,100.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1