Section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act
The decision most relied on for Section 145(1) is CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga (201 ITR 995), cited in 40 of the 31 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 145(1)
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.
A claim for amortization of premium is allowable as a debit to the Profit and Loss account, provided the assessee has the power to make such a debit. This is supported by various Tribunal decisions and Board Instructions.
Depreciation on a vehicle cannot be denied solely because the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicles Act or the vehicle stood in the vendor's name in official records, if the assessee can establish ownership.
A real estate developer adopting the completed contract method of accounting cannot be forced to follow the percentage completion method under AS-7 if AS-7 has not been specified by the Central Government under section 145(2). The Assessing Officer cannot reject accounts under section 145(3) solely on this ground.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the discretion to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage if it is necessary to do substantial justice, even if not produced before the lower authorities. This discretion can be exercised if the evidence is crucial to a just decision, particularly when the Tribunal itself deems it necessary to clarify obscure aspects for a more satisfactory judgment.
Judgments on Section 145(1)
Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2