|
III. Useful Case Laws:
1. M/s I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Civil Appeal No. 3282/2008, Date of Order: 14-01-2013, Supreme Court of India
Vehicle financier eligible for depreciation on vehicle not registered it its name.
Moto Vehicle
Act mandates that during the period of lease, the vehicle be registered,
in the certificate of registration, in the name of the lessee and, on
conclusion of the lease period, the vehicle be registered in the name of
lessor as owner. The Section leaves no choice to the lessor but to
allow the vehicle to be registered in the name of the lessee Thus, no
inference can be drawn from the registration certificate as to ownership
of the legal title of the vehicle; and (iii) if the lessee was in fact
the owner, he would have claimed depreciation on the vehicles, which, as
specifically recorded in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, was not
done.
It would be a
strange situation to have no claim of depreciation in case of a
particular depreciable asset due to a vacuum of ownership. As
afore-noted, the entire lease rent received by the assessee is assessed
as business income in its hands and the entire lease rent paid by the
lessee has been treated as deductible revenue expenditure in the hands
of the lessee. This reaffirms the position that the assessee is in fact
the owner of the vehicle, in so far as Section 32 of the Act is
concerned.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. Avinash Jain, ITA No.703/2012, Judgment delivered on: 09-01-2013, High court of Delhi
Whether short Term capital gain and long term capital gain can be treated as business income?
In view of on
the CBDT circular No.4/2007 dated 15.06.2007 as also upon decisions of
the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Associated Industrial
Development Co. (P) Ltd. 82 ITR 586 (SC) and CIT Vs. H.Holck Larsen :
160 ITR 67 (SC). Held that if assessee has maintains two types of
portfolios in their books of accounts - one on account of investment and
the other on account of trading. It is not the case that the assessee
started these activities in the year under consideration. The practice
is supported by earlier years also which is not disputed. The department
has earlier accepted the assessee's practice and treatment under heads
of capital gains and business. Assessee's separate activities in share
are further supported and endorsed by the fact that separate de mat
accounts, bank accounts are being maintained and separate trading
account and investment accounts ae(sic) maintained in the books. Under
these circumstances it leaves no room for doubt that the assessee was
dealing in different activities of trading and investment.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now