Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Mysore Minerals Ltd., M.G. Road, ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka, ... on 1 September, 1999
He also referred to the later decision in
Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 106 Taxman 166, where it was
held that the word „owned‟ in Section 32(1) is provided with reference
to the control exercised over the property by the person claiming
relaxation. It is submitted that since the Assessee has made the
investment in the capital assets and is still utilizing it, the Assessee
would be entitled to claim the said depreciation in respect of the hotel
building, the WTT and the WTC from the respective periods when
they were begun to be utilised. With reference to various clauses of
the Agreements in question Mr. Vohra contended that the Assessee
had complete control over the buildings and was also given right to
sub-licence them. Alternatively it was submitted that explanation (1)
to Section 32 had been inserted in the Act with effect from 1 st April,
1988 and it provided that if the Assessee was carrying on business in
the building not owned by the Assessee but in respect of which the
Assessee had right of occupancy, the Assessee would be able to claim
depreciation as if it were the owner thereof.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S Woodward Governor India P. Ltd on 8 April, 2009
25. As regards Questions (x) and (xi) both sides agree that the
ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 20 of 21
questions stand covered in favour of the Assessee and against the
Revenue by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.
(2007) 294 ITR 451 (Del) which has been affirmed by the Supreme
Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Woodward Governor India
P. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 254. Consequently, the questions are answered
in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue affirming the order
of the ITAT.
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
P.K. Badiani vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 21 September, 1976
14. Questions (i) to (iv) concern the aspect of claim of the Assessee to
depreciation in respect of hotel building, WTT and WTC under
Section 32 of the Act. Mr. Vohra submitted that the whole purpose of
allowing the depreciation was to replace the value of an asset to the
extent it is depreciated during the period of accounting relevant to the
AYs in question and such valuation as to that extent will be
diminished by the corresponding allowance of depreciation. He
ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 13 of 21
referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in P.K. Badiani v. CIT
(1976)105 ITR 642 (SC).
The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay Etc vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 27 May, 1997
In any event even for the period earlier than 1st April 1988, in view
of the decision in Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Podar Cement Private Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 and Mysore
Minerals v CIT (supra) the legal position is no longer res integra. In
ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 16 of 21
Podar Cement Private Limited the Supreme Court was called upon to
consider whether the income derived by the assessee on the flat or the
building were income from other sources and not income from the
house property. The Court in that context considered the words
„owner‟ and accepted that this would include "that person who can
exercise the rights of the owner, and not on behalf of the owner but in
his own right."
Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 April, 1991
22. Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue,
referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Shree Nirmal
Commercial Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 193
ITR 694 (Bom). The facts there were that non- refundable deposits
were taken from the shareholders of the Assessee company and they
were allotted floor space area "which they were not only entitled to
occupy but were also entitled to assign to others on payment of
compensation and to transfer their occupancy rights by sale of shares."
It was in those circumstances held that "the whole transaction was, in
reality, a sale of floor space by the Assessee company to its
shareholders." It was concluded that "the residuary rights of
ownership which remained with the Assessee company were
negligible and of dubious value." Consequently, the deposits had to be
ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 19 of 21
treated as trading receipt. As far as the present case is concerned, the
facts are different inasmuch as what has been transferred to the sub-
licencee is only a right of occupancy for the purpose of licence and
nothing more. Whatever benefit the Assessee derived from the
deposits has already been reflected in its business income on which it
has been taxed.
1