CIT v. A.M. Constructions

259 ITR 69High Court2003#4551 most cited

What is CIT v. A.M. Constructions authority for?

The leasing company is considered the owner of an asset in a lease agreement and is therefore entitled to claim depreciation, including at a higher rate if the asset is hired out.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. A.M. Constructions · CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. · lease agreement · owner of asset · depreciation on leased assets · section 32 · higher rate of depreciation · leasing company

Also reported as

126 Taxmann 149

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 assetssection 32(1)icdssection 32revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 26section 263transfersection 25prescribedperson

Judgments citing CIT v. A.M. Constructions

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

…he assessee also pointed out a large number of cases, accepted and unchallenged 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…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

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

…o 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 the matters back to the AOs to examine whether the leased out…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

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

…o 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 the matters back to the AOs to examine whether the leased out…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. H.B. Leasing & Finance Ltd

ITA/6/2000HC Delhi04 Jul 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 260A

…ITA 6/2000 Page 1 of 6 $~R-9 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 4th July, 2013 + Income Tax Appeal 6/2000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus H.B. LEASING & FINANCE LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Santosh K. Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral) The present appeal by the Rev…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. H.B. Leasing & Finance Ltd

ITA - 6 / 2000HC Delhi04 Jul 2013
Section 260A

…ITA 6/2000 Page 1 of 6 $~R-9 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 4th July, 2013 + Income Tax Appeal 6/2000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus H.B. LEASING & FINANCE LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Santosh K. Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral) The present appeal by the Rev…

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

…Vs. Annamalai Finance 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 hav…