M/S MAC CHARLES (INDIA) LTD vs. THE ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/464/2009HC KarnatakaKAHC01049852200903 February 2015Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to deny depreciation. The assessee has an obligation to prove acquisition of the property before claiming depreciation.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on a property, but the authorities denied it as the assessee failed to produce documents proving ownership. The claim was based on deductions in previous years and electricity bills.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation can be allowed on an immovable property without establishing ownership and acquisition of the said property.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 22 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Dated this the 3rd day of February 2015 PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

ITA No. 464 of 2009 BETWEEN:

M/s Mac Charles (India) Ltd., P.B.No.174 No.28, Sankey Road Bangalore-560 052 Represented by its Managing Director Ms. Sangeetha C Pardhanani Aged about 40 years D/o Mr. C.B. Pardhanani

…Appellant

(By Sri Gurunath for Sri. S Parthasarathy, Advocate)

AND:

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1) 14/3, Rastrothana Bhavan 4th Floor, Nrupathunga Road

2 Opp. Reserve Bank of India Bangalore – 560 002

…Respondent

(By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)

This ITA filed U/s. 260A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 30.04.2009 passed in ITA No.587/BNG/2008 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.587/BNG/2008 dated 30.04.2009 in the interest of justice and equity.

This ITA coming on for hearing this day, N. KUMAR J., delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed by the authorities declining to grant the benefit of deduction of depreciation.

The material on record shows that the property in respect of which depreciation is sought for is not shown to belonging to the assessee. The entire claim is based on

3 certain deductions being given in the previous year and one on the basis of the electricity bills.

When depreciation is sought for in respect of immovable property, the assessee owes an obligation to produce the document to show the acquisition of the said property. It is only thereafter granting depreciation would arise. The said fundamental factor having not been established, the authorities were justified in denying the benefit. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the authorities. No merits. Dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

ksp/-

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →