CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga

201 ITR 995High Court1993#2961 most cited

What is CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga authority for?

Registration of a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a prerequisite for claiming depreciation under the Income Tax Act. Beneficial ownership and actual use for business purposes are sufficient.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga · section 32 · depreciation · motor vehicle · ownership · beneficial ownership · registration · Motor Vehicles Act · business use

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…also proceeded on the same footing while declining depreciation at the rate of 30%. 38. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [1994] 77 Taxman 66/[1993] 201 ITR 995 (Bom.), wherein the following view has been taken : "4. The word "owner", as observed by the Supreme Court in R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (at page 578) has different meanings in different contexts and in certain circumstances even a lessee may be considered as the owner of the property leased to him. It was also held to be so…

SEHGAL AUTORIDERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 162/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.162/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sehgal Autoriders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle- 10, D-Ii, 64/6, Midc Telco Road, Pune. Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Aafcs2240A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rishi V. Lodha Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 25.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hon. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals), Pune-6 Erred In Disallowing The Depreciation Claimed For The Cars Used By The Directors For Official Work Of The Company But Ownership Documents In The Name Of Individual Director. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals), Pune-6 Erred In Disallowing The Interest Paid On The Purchase Of Cars.

For Appellant: Shri Rishi V. LodhaFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)

…of the vehicle. On the similar lines, the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navdurga Transport Co., 235 ITR 158 (All.-HC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga, 201 ITR 995 (Bom.-HC). 10. In the light of above legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to the depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the Act inspite of the fact that the vehicle is registered in the name of the director of the appellant company. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addi…

Showing 120 of 40 · Page 1 of 2