CIT v. Aravali Finlease Ltd.

341 ITR 282High Court2012#4899 most cited

What is CIT v. Aravali Finlease Ltd. authority for?

Depreciation is allowable to a company for a vehicle registered in a director's name if the vehicle is used for the company's business and the income generated is offered as the company's income.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Aravali Finlease Ltd. · depreciation allowance · vehicle in director's name · business purpose · company income · section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend

Also reported as

21 Taxmann.com 147

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Judgments citing CIT v. Aravali Finlease Ltd.

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2451/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…case of the assessee was that the payment for purchase of vehicle was made by the Company, though the Car was registered in the name of the Director. This Court under similar circumstances in the case of CIT v. Aravali Finlease Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 147/341 ITR 282 ruled in favour of the assessee. This question is, therefore, not considered In view of the above, we hold that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on the car purchased by it but registered in the name of the director as the assessee is the beneficial owner of such car. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1517/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…case of the assessee was that the payment for purchase of vehicle was made by the Company, though the Car was registered in the name of the Director. This Court under similar circumstances in the case of CIT v. Aravali Finlease Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 147/341 ITR 282 ruled in favour of the assessee. This question is, therefore, not considered In view of the above, we hold that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on the car purchased by it but registered in the name of the director as the assessee is the beneficial owner of such car. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result…

Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. 15(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6434/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle -15(3)(2) B-3301-3302, Oberoi Springs, 4Th Floor, 451 Aayakar Bhavan, Off Link Road, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 45

…ically registered in the name of the assessee company. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: Sr. No. Particulars 1. P a g e | 8 ITA No.6434/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-15(3)(2) 341 ITR 282 (Guj) 2. CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. 257 ITR 88 (Del) 3. Edwise Consultants P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 44 ITR (Trib)236 (Mum) 4. Pan Oleo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 60 ITR (Trib.) 230 (Mum) We are also unable to persuade ourselves to accept the view taken by the lower authorities, that as Shri Uday Singh, director of the assessee company in whos…

PAN Oleo Enterprise P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 569/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pan Oleo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner 202, Quantum Towers Of Income-Tax 10(3)(2) बिधम/ Rambaug Lane, S. V. Road C-10, Pratyakshakar Vs. Malad (West), Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Mumbai-400 064 Complex Mumbai- 400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecp9927E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he placed reliance on the following case law:- P a g e | 6 ITA No. 569/Mum/2016 AY: 2012-13 Pan Oleo Enterprises Vs. ACIT (a) Poddar cements Ltd (226 ITR 625) (b) ITO Vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd (2012)(13 ITR (Tri) 594 (c) CIT Vs. Aravali Finlease Ltd (2012)341 ITR 282 (Guj) (d) CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (2002)(257 ITR 88)(Delhi) 24. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal has confirmed identical disallowance made in the assessee’s own case in AY 2007-08. 25. We have heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court…