In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Azad Finance & Trading, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in holding the transaction as at arms length and allowing the claim of depreciation thereby ignoring the facts brought on record by the Assessin...
Decision: Considering the above, the appeal as filed is not maintainable which is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Applicant
Versus
M/s. Azad Finance & Trading
Investment Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr.S.M. Shah for the Applicant.
Ms. Beena Pillai i/by D.M. Harish & Co. for
Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.
DATED: JUNE 26, 2008
P.C.
. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the
following questions :
"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Hon’ble
Tribunal is right in holding the transaction
as at arms length and allowing the claim of
depreciation thereby ignoring the facts
brought on record by the Assessing Officer
by conducting the survey before completing
the assessment?"
. The same question was a question also framed
before the I.T.A.T. Before I.T.A.T. it was Revenue
which was in appeal. The I.T.A.T. after
considering the facts on record dismissed the
appeal.
. From the record, we find that the assessee had
purchased the goods from HSIL. The assessee in turn
leased the goods to HIPL and realised the entire
lease rent for the period of five years. The order
of the Tribunal notes the letter dated 3.4.2000
addressed by HIPL to the assessee which had been
considered by the C.I.T. (Appeals) wherein it has
been confirmed by HIPL that the ownership of the one
set of sugar rollers which were taken on lease under
the said lease agreement, remains with the assessee.
H.I.P.L. has also confirmed that they have sub
leased the said rollers to Shri. Hanuman Sugar &
Industries Ltd. The learned tribunal noted that the
Assessing Officer has not doubted the existence of
the impugned asset or its use by the sub lessee i.e.
H.S.I.L. and accordingly held that the depreciation
for the assessment year under consideration could
not be disallowed. The tribunal also recorded a
finding that nothing has been brought on record to
show that the H.I.P.L. has shown these assets as
purchase from the assessee and shown them in its
balance sheet as an asset belonging to H.I.P.L.
There are purely findings of fact confirming the
order of C.I.T. (A).
. Considering the above, the appeal as filed is not maintainable which is accordingly dismissed.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.