Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment :: TDS
 
 
From the Courts »
 Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. (Formerly Known As(M/s Samvardhana Motherson Finance Ltd.)a Vs. Assitant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 Vs. M/s Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
 Ram Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-64(2) & Anr.
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Vs. St Microelectronics Private Ltd.
  The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
 M/s Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.Et Compagnie Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu) Vs. ESPN Software India Ltd.
 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,
 ITO vs. Gymkhana Club (ITAT Chandigarh)
 SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. CCE (Supreme Court)
 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Exemption Vs. The Fertilizers Association Of India

I. C. D. S. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
February, 08th 2013

S. 32: A “Financier” satisfies the “ownership” & “user” test for depreciation

The assessee, a NBFC, bought vehicles and leased it out to its customers. The vehicles were registered in the names of the customers. The AO held that as the vehicles were registered in the names of the customers and were used by them, the assessee was not eligible for depreciation u/s 32 as it was not the “owner” of the vehicles nor had it “used” the vehicles for purposes of business. The CIT(A) & Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim. However, the High Court reversed the Tribunal on the ground that the assessee was only a “financier” and not the “owner” of the vehicles and so was not eligible to claim depreciation. On appeal by the assessee to the Supreme Court, HELD reversing the High Court:

(i) S. 32 requires that the asset must be “owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business”. The Department’s argument that the assessee is not the “owner” of the vehicles is not acceptable because the lease agreement specifically provided that the assessee was the exclusive owner of the vehicle at all points of time and that it was empowered to repossess the vehicle (and not merely recover money) if the lessee committed a default. At the conclusion of the lease period, the lessee was obliged to return the vehicle to the assessee. Also, the assessee had the right of inspection of the vehicle at all times. As the assessee has a right to retain the legal title of the vehicle against the rest of the world, it would be the owner of the vehicle in the eyes of law. The fact that at the end of the lease period, the ownership of the vehicle is transferred to the lessee at a nominal value not exceeding 1% of the original cost of the vehicle does not make a difference. Also the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act deems the lessee to be the “owner” has no relevance;

(ii) The Department’s argument that the assessee had not “used” the vehicles is also not acceptable because the vehicle was “used” by the assessee in its’ business of leasing. Once it is held that leasing out of the vehicles is one mode of doing business by the assessee and the income derived from leasing out is treated as business income it would be contradictory, in terms, to say that the vehicles are not used wholly for the purpose of the assessee’s business. The physical user of the vehicles is not necessary (Shaan Finance 231 ITR 308 (SC) followed)

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Mission

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions