238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd.

285 ITR 142High Court2006#4835 most cited

What is 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. authority for?

The leasing company is considered the owner of an asset under a lease agreement and is therefore entitled to claim depreciation, including at a higher rate for assets hired out. The court does not consider it necessary to delve into disputes about invoice issuance names when the lease agreement and related factors satisfy the ownership criteria.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. · Section 32 · depreciation on leased assets · owner of asset · lease agreement · leasing company · higher rate of depreciation · hired out assets · lessor entitlement · A.M. Constructions · M.G.F. (India) Ltd. · Annamalai Finance Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetsicdssection 32(1)section 32revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 263section 26transfersection 25prescribedperson

Judgments citing 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd.

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground, no

ITA 5882/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…challenged by the Revenue, wherein the lessor has been held as the owner of an asset in a lease agreement. CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CITv. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisio…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

…issue of claim of depreciation at the higher rate of 30% to the Assessing Officer in respect of motor vehicles given on lease?‖ 2. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. MGF (India) Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del). Tribunal in the impugned order reproduced paragraph 23 of the judgment in the case of Bansal Credit Ltd. (supra), which reads as follows:- ―Before we close, we may point out that in some of the cases before us (ITAs No.64/99, 65/99, 73/99 & 74/99), the Tribunal has remanded t…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/371/2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

…issue of claim of depreciation at the higher rate of 30% to the Assessing Officer in respect of motor vehicles given on lease?‖ 2. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. MGF (India) Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del). Tribunal in the impugned order reproduced paragraph 23 of the judgment in the case of Bansal Credit Ltd. (supra), which reads as follows:- ―Before we close, we may point out that in some of the cases before us (ITAs No.64/99, 65/99, 73/99 & 74/99), the Tribunal has remanded t…

M/S. I.C.D.S. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

C.A. No.-003282-003282 - 2008Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 32

…ance Ltd.7]. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the 4 (1999) 238 ITR 775 (AP) 5 (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del) 6 (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del.) 7 (2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad) 27 Page 28 JUDGMENT asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point. 28. There was some controversy regarding the invoices issued by the manufacturer – whether they were issued in the name of the lessee or the lessor. For the view we have taken above, we deem it…