Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Decided On : Nov-27-2000
Court : Karnataka
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 43(1', (int) 2 => 'Section 143(1)(a', (int) 3 => 'Section 32', (int) 4 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 5 => 'Section 32', (int) 6 => 'Section 32', (int) 7 => 'Section 32A.', (int) 8 => 'Section 43(1' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Ashok Bhan', (int) 1 => 'Bangalore Bench', (int) 2 => 'I. T. A. No', (int) 3 => 'Questions Nos' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal', (int) 1 => 'Tribunal', (int) 2 => 'Tribunal', (int) 3 => 'Tribunal', (int) 4 => 'Tribunal', (int) 5 => 'Tribunal', (int) 6 => 'Tribunal', (int) 7 => 'Tribunal', (int) 8 => 'Tribunal', (int) 9 => 'Tribunal', (int) 10 => 'CIT', (int) 11 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 12 => 'CIT', (int) 13 => 'Tribunal' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'three', (int) 1 => '457', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3.', (int) 4 => '2', (int) 5 => '1,47,596', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'three', (int) 8 => '1', (int) 9 => '1993]199ITR409(KAR', (int) 10 => '1998]231ITR308(SC', (int) 11 => 'zero', (int) 12 => '1', (int) 13 => '2', (int) 14 => '3', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '3', (int) 17 => '2', (int) 18 => '3' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1961', (int) 1 => '1994', (int) 2 => 'September 12', (int) 3 => 'the assessment year 1991-92', (int) 4 => '1961', (int) 5 => '28th of January, 1992', (int) 6 => '142(1' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shaan Finance', (int) 1 => 'Shaan Finance' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third', (int) 1 => 'third' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '384899', 'acts' => 'Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32, 32A, 43, 142(1), 143(1), 143(2) and 256(1)', 'appealno' => 'I.T.R.C. No. 24 of 1996', 'appellant' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax', 'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - depreciation - Income Tax Act, 1961 - whether Tribunal justified in holding that assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation on consumer durables leased by applicant to various customers - assessee incurred expenditure on cost of goods at time of purchase of same - thereafter assessee debited respective customer in respect of said entire cost - had assessee been leasing out goods even after expiry of lease period would be returned to assessee for further leasing - assessee not even declared scrap value of goods at any time or when written down value becomes zero - High Court of opinion that Tribunal was right in holding that assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation - question referred to Court answered in affirmative and against assessee. - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Section 409: [V.G.Sabhahit,J] Misappropriation Prosecution against Secretary of Society - Trial Court convicted Appellate Court upheld judgment of Trial court Revision against Held, The First Appellate Court has proceeded on the basis that prosecution has proved that accused was working as Secretary and entrusted with duty of writing cash book etc. and had misappropriated amount. Appellate Court has not considered evidence of other witnesses. Swayed by the evidence of Auditor and accepted his evidence. Appellate Court not referred to the evidence of other witnesses in the light of fact elicited during cross-examination of Auditor. Evidence of third witness cannot be thrown to winds because this witness cannot be cross-examined because of his death after examination-in-chief. Evidence of other witnesses not helpful to prosecution. If evidence of auditor and other one witness is not held to be truthful evidence of other witnesses assume importance. Since High Court in exercise of revisional power cannot re-appreciate evidence, the matter remitted to First Appellate Court to pass fresh order after re-appreciating the evidence. - The assets on which the depreciation was claimed were consumer durables like TV, VCR, refrigerators and scooters etc. But the arrangements were made in such a manner that in the case of a good customer sticking to the terms of the agreement, the entire amount including the lease rent would get paid up before the expiry of the lease period. 1: Counsel for the assessee argued that an assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant or furniture and intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, etc. But, if an assessee is engaged in the letting out of his assets then he would be entitled to the depreciation in respect thereof as he remains the owner of assets as well as uses them for his business, the business being letting out the assets. It is like selling goods by way of equated instalments. The contention that the assessee remains the legal owner of the goods and he is engaged in the leasing business and, therefore, entitled to the depreciation on the assets leased out, would not hold good in the present case as consumer durables are actually stock-in-trade in the business of the assessee on which there is no provision for allowance of depreciation. Simultaneously, it debited the sale price to the account of the consumer and recovered the money due to it in instalments which included the cost of the assets as well as the interest on the money advanced by the assessee for the purchase of the goods. By the time the final instalment got paid, the principal as well as interest get wiped out and the consumer becomes the owner of the goods.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'G. Sarangan, Senior Adv., ;S. Parthasarathi and ;N.C. Ravikrishnan, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'E.R. Indra Kumar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-11-27', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Ashok Bhan and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Bhan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case. It arises from the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 457/B of 1994, dated September 12, 1994.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the claim of depreciation on the consumer durables which were leased by the applicant to various customers ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in concluding that there was no 'actual cost' incurred by the applicant as defined under Section 43(1) of the Act to justify the claim of depreciation ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in interpreting the lease rent received as a recovery of cost of materials leased to hold that the actual cost in the hands of the applicant as 'nil' ?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessee is a non-banking company engaged in the business of hire purchase and lease. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total loss of Rs. 1,47,596. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), on 28th of January, 1992. Later on notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and thereafter the assessment was framed by the assessing authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The assessee has two types of business that is hire purchase of vehicles and of leasing of consumer durables. We are referring to the facts regarding leasing business only as none of the questions pertain to hire purchase business of the assessee. The assessee claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the consumer durables/goods leased on the plea that the assets were owned by the assessee and were used by it in its business of leasing. The assessing authority, however, denied depreciation to the assessee on the said assets by holding that the assessee was neither the owner of the assets nor were assets to put to any commercial use by it. The assessee was getting the vouchers and other purchase documents made out in its name. It was also found that the assessee was arranging transaction of its leasing business in a way as if the legal ownership vests with it. But, however, it never came to possess the assets in reality. The assets were not shown in the schedule annexed to the balance-sheet of the assessee. It was also found that the assessee had never declared the 'scrap value of assets' during their life time even though their written down value had become zero. The assets on which the depreciation was claimed were consumer durables like TV, VCR, refrigerators and scooters etc., and therefore there was no question of those assets being put to any commercial use by the assessee. On these findings the assessing authority concluded that the transactions entered into by the assessee with its customers were in fact not leasing transactions inasmuch as the goods were never returned to the assessee at the end of the lease period. The Assessing Officer, therefore, declined to allow depreciation on the assets.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The assessee being aggrieved against the order of the assessing authority filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concurred with the view taken by the assessing authority and dismissed the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee filed a further appeal before the Tribunal which was also dismissed. It was found by the Tribunal that the leasing business of the assessee was of such a nature that the assessee nominally purchased the consumer durables and immediately handed them over to its customers. It is the customers themselves who chose the consumer durables and also arranged for their purchase. The assessee provided finance for purchasing the goods. In the books of the assessee, the customers become indebted tothe entire cost of goods along with interest or so-called 'lease rent' payable thereon. The agreements are drawn up in such a manner that the assessee would remain the owner of the goods till the full payments are made. But the arrangements were made in such a manner that in the case of a good customer sticking to the terms of the agreement, the entire amount including the lease rent would get paid up before the expiry of the lease period. The ownership of the goods thereafter would pass on from the assessee to the customers and they would not be required to return the goods to the assessee. On these findings, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Thereafter on an application made by the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has referred, the three questions of law already reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Question No. 1: Counsel for the assessee argued that an assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant or furniture and intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, etc., if he owns the assets and uses them for the purpose of business/profession. For this he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. : [1993]199ITR409(KAR) which was later on affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. : [1998]231ITR308(SC) . The assessee being engaged in the business of leasing out/letting out of his articles, remains the owner of the assets and uses them for its business and, therefore, would be entitled to the depreciation claimed under Section 32 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. We do not find merit in the submission of counsel for the assessee on the given facts and circumstances of the case. Ordinarily, the lessor is not entitled to claim depreciation on the assets leased by him because, in that case, the leased out asset is used for the purpose of business/profession of the lessee and not that of the lessor. But, if an assessee is engaged in the letting out of his assets then he would be entitled to the depreciation in respect thereof as he remains the owner of assets as well as uses them for his business, the business being letting out the assets. In the present case, on the findings recorded (which have not been challenged) we find that the transaction entered into by the appellant were in fact not lease transaction but sale of goods on instalment basis. It is the customers, who themselves chose the consumer durables and arranged for their purchase. The assessee provided the finance and in the books of the assessee, the customer become indebted to the extent of the entire cost of the goods along with interest or so called 'lease rent' payable thereon. The arrangements are made in such a way that if a customer sticks to the terms of the agreement, then, the entire amount including the lease rent gets paid up before tbe expiry of the period of lease and the ownership of the goods passes on from the assessee to the customer automatically. The customers are notrequired to return the goods to the assessee. It is like selling goods by way of equated instalments. The contention that the assessee remains the legal owner of the goods and he is engaged in the leasing business and, therefore, entitled to the depreciation on the assets leased out, would not hold good in the present case as consumer durables are actually stock-in-trade in the business of the assessee on which there is no provision for allowance of depreciation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The judgments on which the reliance is placed by counsel for the assessee are of no assistance to him as in those cases the courts were considering as to whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of machinery owned by the assessee to third parties who use the machinery for manufacture of articles or things. It was proved by the assessee that the machinery owned by it had actually been leased out to a third party and on these facts it was held that the assessee would be entitled to the investment allowance under Section 32A. Whereas in the case before us the finding recorded is that the assessee neither actually owned the assets nor did it use it for its business. The transaction entered into by the assessee was for sale of the consumer durables by way of instalments. It is the assessee who chose and purchased the goods. The assessee had paid for the goods on behalf of the customer. Simultaneously, it debited the sale price to the account of the consumer and recovered the money due to it in instalments which included the cost of the assets as well as the interest on the money advanced by the assessee for the purchase of the goods. By the time the final instalment got paid, the principal as well as interest get wiped out and the consumer becomes the owner of the goods. The goods never come back to the assessee for leasing them to any other person. Though the transaction was termed as a lease deed, in fact that was in the nature of hire purchase/installment scheme.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The goods have to be considered as assets payable thereon. The assessee incurs expenditure on the cost of the goods at the time of purchase of the same. But immediately thereafter the assessee debits the respective customer in respect of the said entire cost. The cost of the goods incurred by the assessee thus becomes recoupable by it from its customers. Had the assessee been leasing out the goods then after the expiry of the lease period the leased goods would be returned to the assessee for further leasing. As pointed out earlier the consumer becomes the owner of the goods before the expiry of the lease period as he pays the purchase price of the goods along with interest by way of instalments. The assessee has not even declared the scrap value of the goods at any time during the life time of the goods or when the written down value becomes zero. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation on the goods which were stated to have been leased out by him to the authorised custo-mers. Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the asses-see and in favour of the Revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 : Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are interlinked and interdependent on each other and therefore, are taken up together. Immediately after incurring the expenditure on the cost of the goods, the assessee debits the respective customer in respect of the entire cost in his books and the cost of the goods incurred by the assessee becomes recoup-able by it from its customers. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accountancy. The assessee gets reimbursed by the customer in respect of the cost of the goods incurred by it although the actual payment may take some time under the deferred payment scheme. 'Actual cost' as defined under Section 43(1) means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority. As the assessee in his books of account debits the cost of the goods in the account of the customer and the customer becomes indebted to the extent of the entire cost along with interest, the actual cost of the assets in the hands of the assessee becomes nil immediately on purchase of the goods. It goes without saying that the depreciation cannot be allowed on the assets for which the actual cost is nil. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are also answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The questions stands answered accordingly. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(2001)166CTR(Kar)137; [2001]248ITR713(KAR); [2001]248ITR713(Karn); [2001]116TAXMAN375(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax', 'sub' => 'Direct Taxation', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '384899' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 43(1', (int) 2 => 'Section 143(1)(a', (int) 3 => 'Section 32', (int) 4 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 5 => 'Section 32', (int) 6 => 'Section 32', (int) 7 => 'Section 32A.', (int) 8 => 'Section 43(1' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Ashok Bhan', (int) 1 => 'Bangalore Bench', (int) 2 => 'I. T. A. No', (int) 3 => 'Questions Nos' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal', (int) 1 => 'Tribunal', (int) 2 => 'Tribunal', (int) 3 => 'Tribunal', (int) 4 => 'Tribunal', (int) 5 => 'Tribunal', (int) 6 => 'Tribunal', (int) 7 => 'Tribunal', (int) 8 => 'Tribunal', (int) 9 => 'Tribunal', (int) 10 => 'CIT', (int) 11 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 12 => 'CIT', (int) 13 => 'Tribunal' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'three', (int) 1 => '457', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3.', (int) 4 => '2', (int) 5 => '1,47,596', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'three', (int) 8 => '1', (int) 9 => '1993]199ITR409(KAR', (int) 10 => '1998]231ITR308(SC', (int) 11 => 'zero', (int) 12 => '1', (int) 13 => '2', (int) 14 => '3', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '3', (int) 17 => '2', (int) 18 => '3' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1961', (int) 1 => '1994', (int) 2 => 'September 12', (int) 3 => 'the assessment year 1991-92', (int) 4 => '1961', (int) 5 => '28th of January, 1992', (int) 6 => '142(1' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shaan Finance', (int) 1 => 'Shaan Finance' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third', (int) 1 => 'third' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '384899', 'acts' => 'Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32, 32A, 43, 142(1), 143(1), 143(2) and 256(1)', 'appealno' => 'I.T.R.C. No. 24 of 1996', 'appellant' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax', 'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - depreciation - Income Tax Act, 1961 - whether Tribunal justified in holding that assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation on consumer durables leased by applicant to various customers - assessee incurred expenditure on cost of goods at time of purchase of same - thereafter assessee debited respective customer in respect of said entire cost - had assessee been leasing out goods even after expiry of lease period would be returned to assessee for further leasing - assessee not even declared scrap value of goods at any time or when written down value becomes zero - High Court of opinion that Tribunal was right in holding that assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation - question referred to Court answered in affirmative and against assessee. - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Section 409: [V.G.Sabhahit,J] Misappropriation Prosecution against Secretary of Society - Trial Court convicted Appellate Court upheld judgment of Trial court Revision against Held, The First Appellate Court has proceeded on the basis that prosecution has proved that accused was working as Secretary and entrusted with duty of writing cash book etc. and had misappropriated amount. Appellate Court has not considered evidence of other witnesses. Swayed by the evidence of Auditor and accepted his evidence. Appellate Court not referred to the evidence of other witnesses in the light of fact elicited during cross-examination of Auditor. Evidence of third witness cannot be thrown to winds because this witness cannot be cross-examined because of his death after examination-in-chief. Evidence of other witnesses not helpful to prosecution. If evidence of auditor and other one witness is not held to be truthful evidence of other witnesses assume importance. Since High Court in exercise of revisional power cannot re-appreciate evidence, the matter remitted to First Appellate Court to pass fresh order after re-appreciating the evidence. - The assets on which the depreciation was claimed were consumer durables like TV, VCR, refrigerators and scooters etc. But the arrangements were made in such a manner that in the case of a good customer sticking to the terms of the agreement, the entire amount including the lease rent would get paid up before the expiry of the lease period. 1: Counsel for the assessee argued that an assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant or furniture and intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, etc. But, if an assessee is engaged in the letting out of his assets then he would be entitled to the depreciation in respect thereof as he remains the owner of assets as well as uses them for his business, the business being letting out the assets. It is like selling goods by way of equated instalments. The contention that the assessee remains the legal owner of the goods and he is engaged in the leasing business and, therefore, entitled to the depreciation on the assets leased out, would not hold good in the present case as consumer durables are actually stock-in-trade in the business of the assessee on which there is no provision for allowance of depreciation. Simultaneously, it debited the sale price to the account of the consumer and recovered the money due to it in instalments which included the cost of the assets as well as the interest on the money advanced by the assessee for the purchase of the goods. By the time the final instalment got paid, the principal as well as interest get wiped out and the consumer becomes the owner of the goods.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'G. Sarangan, Senior Adv., ;S. Parthasarathi and ;N.C. Ravikrishnan, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'E.R. Indra Kumar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-11-27', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Ashok Bhan and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Bhan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case. It arises from the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 457/B of 1994, dated September 12, 1994.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the claim of depreciation on the consumer durables which were leased by the applicant to various customers ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in concluding that there was no 'actual cost' incurred by the applicant as defined under Section 43(1) of the Act to justify the claim of depreciation ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in interpreting the lease rent received as a recovery of cost of materials leased to hold that the actual cost in the hands of the applicant as 'nil' ?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessee is a non-banking company engaged in the business of hire purchase and lease. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total loss of Rs. 1,47,596. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), on 28th of January, 1992. Later on notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and thereafter the assessment was framed by the assessing authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The assessee has two types of business that is hire purchase of vehicles and of leasing of consumer durables. We are referring to the facts regarding leasing business only as none of the questions pertain to hire purchase business of the assessee. The assessee claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the consumer durables/goods leased on the plea that the assets were owned by the assessee and were used by it in its business of leasing. The assessing authority, however, denied depreciation to the assessee on the said assets by holding that the assessee was neither the owner of the assets nor were assets to put to any commercial use by it. The assessee was getting the vouchers and other purchase documents made out in its name. It was also found that the assessee was arranging transaction of its leasing business in a way as if the legal ownership vests with it. But, however, it never came to possess the assets in reality. The assets were not shown in the schedule annexed to the balance-sheet of the assessee. It was also found that the assessee had never declared the 'scrap value of assets' during their life time even though their written down value had become zero. The assets on which the depreciation was claimed were consumer durables like TV, VCR, refrigerators and scooters etc., and therefore there was no question of those assets being put to any commercial use by the assessee. On these findings the assessing authority concluded that the transactions entered into by the assessee with its customers were in fact not leasing transactions inasmuch as the goods were never returned to the assessee at the end of the lease period. The Assessing Officer, therefore, declined to allow depreciation on the assets.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The assessee being aggrieved against the order of the assessing authority filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concurred with the view taken by the assessing authority and dismissed the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee filed a further appeal before the Tribunal which was also dismissed. It was found by the Tribunal that the leasing business of the assessee was of such a nature that the assessee nominally purchased the consumer durables and immediately handed them over to its customers. It is the customers themselves who chose the consumer durables and also arranged for their purchase. The assessee provided finance for purchasing the goods. In the books of the assessee, the customers become indebted tothe entire cost of goods along with interest or so-called 'lease rent' payable thereon. The agreements are drawn up in such a manner that the assessee would remain the owner of the goods till the full payments are made. But the arrangements were made in such a manner that in the case of a good customer sticking to the terms of the agreement, the entire amount including the lease rent would get paid up before the expiry of the lease period. The ownership of the goods thereafter would pass on from the assessee to the customers and they would not be required to return the goods to the assessee. On these findings, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Thereafter on an application made by the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has referred, the three questions of law already reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Question No. 1: Counsel for the assessee argued that an assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant or furniture and intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, etc., if he owns the assets and uses them for the purpose of business/profession. For this he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. : [1993]199ITR409(KAR) which was later on affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. : [1998]231ITR308(SC) . The assessee being engaged in the business of leasing out/letting out of his articles, remains the owner of the assets and uses them for its business and, therefore, would be entitled to the depreciation claimed under Section 32 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. We do not find merit in the submission of counsel for the assessee on the given facts and circumstances of the case. Ordinarily, the lessor is not entitled to claim depreciation on the assets leased by him because, in that case, the leased out asset is used for the purpose of business/profession of the lessee and not that of the lessor. But, if an assessee is engaged in the letting out of his assets then he would be entitled to the depreciation in respect thereof as he remains the owner of assets as well as uses them for his business, the business being letting out the assets. In the present case, on the findings recorded (which have not been challenged) we find that the transaction entered into by the appellant were in fact not lease transaction but sale of goods on instalment basis. It is the customers, who themselves chose the consumer durables and arranged for their purchase. The assessee provided the finance and in the books of the assessee, the customer become indebted to the extent of the entire cost of the goods along with interest or so called 'lease rent' payable thereon. The arrangements are made in such a way that if a customer sticks to the terms of the agreement, then, the entire amount including the lease rent gets paid up before tbe expiry of the period of lease and the ownership of the goods passes on from the assessee to the customer automatically. The customers are notrequired to return the goods to the assessee. It is like selling goods by way of equated instalments. The contention that the assessee remains the legal owner of the goods and he is engaged in the leasing business and, therefore, entitled to the depreciation on the assets leased out, would not hold good in the present case as consumer durables are actually stock-in-trade in the business of the assessee on which there is no provision for allowance of depreciation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The judgments on which the reliance is placed by counsel for the assessee are of no assistance to him as in those cases the courts were considering as to whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of machinery owned by the assessee to third parties who use the machinery for manufacture of articles or things. It was proved by the assessee that the machinery owned by it had actually been leased out to a third party and on these facts it was held that the assessee would be entitled to the investment allowance under Section 32A. Whereas in the case before us the finding recorded is that the assessee neither actually owned the assets nor did it use it for its business. The transaction entered into by the assessee was for sale of the consumer durables by way of instalments. It is the assessee who chose and purchased the goods. The assessee had paid for the goods on behalf of the customer. Simultaneously, it debited the sale price to the account of the consumer and recovered the money due to it in instalments which included the cost of the assets as well as the interest on the money advanced by the assessee for the purchase of the goods. By the time the final instalment got paid, the principal as well as interest get wiped out and the consumer becomes the owner of the goods. The goods never come back to the assessee for leasing them to any other person. Though the transaction was termed as a lease deed, in fact that was in the nature of hire purchase/installment scheme.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The goods have to be considered as assets payable thereon. The assessee incurs expenditure on the cost of the goods at the time of purchase of the same. But immediately thereafter the assessee debits the respective customer in respect of the said entire cost. The cost of the goods incurred by the assessee thus becomes recoupable by it from its customers. Had the assessee been leasing out the goods then after the expiry of the lease period the leased goods would be returned to the assessee for further leasing. As pointed out earlier the consumer becomes the owner of the goods before the expiry of the lease period as he pays the purchase price of the goods along with interest by way of instalments. The assessee has not even declared the scrap value of the goods at any time during the life time of the goods or when the written down value becomes zero. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation on the goods which were stated to have been leased out by him to the authorised custo-mers. Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the asses-see and in favour of the Revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 : Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are interlinked and interdependent on each other and therefore, are taken up together. Immediately after incurring the expenditure on the cost of the goods, the assessee debits the respective customer in respect of the entire cost in his books and the cost of the goods incurred by the assessee becomes recoup-able by it from its customers. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accountancy. The assessee gets reimbursed by the customer in respect of the cost of the goods incurred by it although the actual payment may take some time under the deferred payment scheme. 'Actual cost' as defined under Section 43(1) means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority. As the assessee in his books of account debits the cost of the goods in the account of the customer and the customer becomes indebted to the extent of the entire cost along with interest, the actual cost of the assets in the hands of the assessee becomes nil immediately on purchase of the goods. It goes without saying that the depreciation cannot be allowed on the assets for which the actual cost is nil. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are also answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The questions stands answered accordingly. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(2001)166CTR(Kar)137; [2001]248ITR713(KAR); [2001]248ITR713(Karn); [2001]116TAXMAN375(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax', 'sub' => 'Direct Taxation', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '384899' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 43(1', (int) 2 => 'Section 143(1)(a', (int) 3 => 'Section 32', (int) 4 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 5 => 'Section 32', (int) 6 => 'Section 32', (int) 7 => 'Section 32A.', (int) 8 => 'Section 43(1' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Ashok Bhan', (int) 1 => 'Bangalore Bench', (int) 2 => 'I. T. A. No', (int) 3 => 'Questions Nos' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal', (int) 1 => 'Tribunal', (int) 2 => 'Tribunal', (int) 3 => 'Tribunal', (int) 4 => 'Tribunal', (int) 5 => 'Tribunal', (int) 6 => 'Tribunal', (int) 7 => 'Tribunal', (int) 8 => 'Tribunal', (int) 9 => 'Tribunal', (int) 10 => 'CIT', (int) 11 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 12 => 'CIT', (int) 13 => 'Tribunal' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'three', (int) 1 => '457', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3.', (int) 4 => '2', (int) 5 => '1,47,596', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'three', (int) 8 => '1', (int) 9 => '1993]199ITR409(KAR', (int) 10 => '1998]231ITR308(SC', (int) 11 => 'zero', (int) 12 => '1', (int) 13 => '2', (int) 14 => '3', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '3', (int) 17 => '2', (int) 18 => '3' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1961', (int) 1 => '1994', (int) 2 => 'September 12', (int) 3 => 'the assessment year 1991-92', (int) 4 => '1961', (int) 5 => '28th of January, 1992', (int) 6 => '142(1' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shaan Finance', (int) 1 => 'Shaan Finance' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third', (int) 1 => 'third' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '384899', 'acts' => 'Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32, 32A, 43, 142(1), 143(1), 143(2) and 256(1)', 'appealno' => 'I.T.R.C. No. 24 of 1996', 'appellant' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax', 'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - depreciation - Income Tax Act, 1961 - whether Tribunal justified in holding that assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation on consumer durables leased by applicant to various customers - assessee incurred expenditure on cost of goods at time of purchase of same - thereafter assessee debited respective customer in respect of said entire cost - had assessee been leasing out goods even after expiry of lease period would be returned to assessee for further leasing - assessee not even declared scrap value of goods at any time or when written down value becomes zero - High Court of opinion that Tribunal was right in holding that assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation - question referred to Court answered in affirmative and against assessee. - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Section 409: [V.G.Sabhahit,J] Misappropriation Prosecution against Secretary of Society - Trial Court convicted Appellate Court upheld judgment of Trial court Revision against Held, The First Appellate Court has proceeded on the basis that prosecution has proved that accused was working as Secretary and entrusted with duty of writing cash book etc. and had misappropriated amount. Appellate Court has not considered evidence of other witnesses. Swayed by the evidence of Auditor and accepted his evidence. Appellate Court not referred to the evidence of other witnesses in the light of fact elicited during cross-examination of Auditor. Evidence of third witness cannot be thrown to winds because this witness cannot be cross-examined because of his death after examination-in-chief. Evidence of other witnesses not helpful to prosecution. If evidence of auditor and other one witness is not held to be truthful evidence of other witnesses assume importance. Since High Court in exercise of revisional power cannot re-appreciate evidence, the matter remitted to First Appellate Court to pass fresh order after re-appreciating the evidence. - The assets on which the depreciation was claimed were consumer durables like TV, VCR, refrigerators and scooters etc. But the arrangements were made in such a manner that in the case of a good customer sticking to the terms of the agreement, the entire amount including the lease rent would get paid up before the expiry of the lease period. 1: Counsel for the assessee argued that an assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant or furniture and intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, etc. But, if an assessee is engaged in the letting out of his assets then he would be entitled to the depreciation in respect thereof as he remains the owner of assets as well as uses them for his business, the business being letting out the assets. It is like selling goods by way of equated instalments. The contention that the assessee remains the legal owner of the goods and he is engaged in the leasing business and, therefore, entitled to the depreciation on the assets leased out, would not hold good in the present case as consumer durables are actually stock-in-trade in the business of the assessee on which there is no provision for allowance of depreciation. Simultaneously, it debited the sale price to the account of the consumer and recovered the money due to it in instalments which included the cost of the assets as well as the interest on the money advanced by the assessee for the purchase of the goods. By the time the final instalment got paid, the principal as well as interest get wiped out and the consumer becomes the owner of the goods.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'G. Sarangan, Senior Adv., ;S. Parthasarathi and ;N.C. Ravikrishnan, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'E.R. Indra Kumar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-11-27', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Ashok Bhan and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Bhan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case. It arises from the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 457/B of 1994, dated September 12, 1994.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the claim of depreciation on the consumer durables which were leased by the applicant to various customers ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in concluding that there was no 'actual cost' incurred by the applicant as defined under Section 43(1) of the Act to justify the claim of depreciation ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in interpreting the lease rent received as a recovery of cost of materials leased to hold that the actual cost in the hands of the applicant as 'nil' ?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessee is a non-banking company engaged in the business of hire purchase and lease. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total loss of Rs. 1,47,596. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), on 28th of January, 1992. Later on notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and thereafter the assessment was framed by the assessing authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The assessee has two types of business that is hire purchase of vehicles and of leasing of consumer durables. We are referring to the facts regarding leasing business only as none of the questions pertain to hire purchase business of the assessee. The assessee claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the consumer durables/goods leased on the plea that the assets were owned by the assessee and were used by it in its business of leasing. The assessing authority, however, denied depreciation to the assessee on the said assets by holding that the assessee was neither the owner of the assets nor were assets to put to any commercial use by it. The assessee was getting the vouchers and other purchase documents made out in its name. It was also found that the assessee was arranging transaction of its leasing business in a way as if the legal ownership vests with it. But, however, it never came to possess the assets in reality. The assets were not shown in the schedule annexed to the balance-sheet of the assessee. It was also found that the assessee had never declared the 'scrap value of assets' during their life time even though their written down value had become zero. The assets on which the depreciation was claimed were consumer durables like TV, VCR, refrigerators and scooters etc., and therefore there was no question of those assets being put to any commercial use by the assessee. On these findings the assessing authority concluded that the transactions entered into by the assessee with its customers were in fact not leasing transactions inasmuch as the goods were never returned to the assessee at the end of the lease period. The Assessing Officer, therefore, declined to allow depreciation on the assets.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The assessee being aggrieved against the order of the assessing authority filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concurred with the view taken by the assessing authority and dismissed the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee filed a further appeal before the Tribunal which was also dismissed. It was found by the Tribunal that the leasing business of the assessee was of such a nature that the assessee nominally purchased the consumer durables and immediately handed them over to its customers. It is the customers themselves who chose the consumer durables and also arranged for their purchase. The assessee provided finance for purchasing the goods. In the books of the assessee, the customers become indebted tothe entire cost of goods along with interest or so-called 'lease rent' payable thereon. The agreements are drawn up in such a manner that the assessee would remain the owner of the goods till the full payments are made. But the arrangements were made in such a manner that in the case of a good customer sticking to the terms of the agreement, the entire amount including the lease rent would get paid up before the expiry of the lease period. The ownership of the goods thereafter would pass on from the assessee to the customers and they would not be required to return the goods to the assessee. On these findings, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Thereafter on an application made by the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has referred, the three questions of law already reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Question No. 1: Counsel for the assessee argued that an assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant or furniture and intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, etc., if he owns the assets and uses them for the purpose of business/profession. For this he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. : [1993]199ITR409(KAR) which was later on affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. : [1998]231ITR308(SC) . The assessee being engaged in the business of leasing out/letting out of his articles, remains the owner of the assets and uses them for its business and, therefore, would be entitled to the depreciation claimed under Section 32 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. We do not find merit in the submission of counsel for the assessee on the given facts and circumstances of the case. Ordinarily, the lessor is not entitled to claim depreciation on the assets leased by him because, in that case, the leased out asset is used for the purpose of business/profession of the lessee and not that of the lessor. But, if an assessee is engaged in the letting out of his assets then he would be entitled to the depreciation in respect thereof as he remains the owner of assets as well as uses them for his business, the business being letting out the assets. In the present case, on the findings recorded (which have not been challenged) we find that the transaction entered into by the appellant were in fact not lease transaction but sale of goods on instalment basis. It is the customers, who themselves chose the consumer durables and arranged for their purchase. The assessee provided the finance and in the books of the assessee, the customer become indebted to the extent of the entire cost of the goods along with interest or so called 'lease rent' payable thereon. The arrangements are made in such a way that if a customer sticks to the terms of the agreement, then, the entire amount including the lease rent gets paid up before tbe expiry of the period of lease and the ownership of the goods passes on from the assessee to the customer automatically. The customers are notrequired to return the goods to the assessee. It is like selling goods by way of equated instalments. The contention that the assessee remains the legal owner of the goods and he is engaged in the leasing business and, therefore, entitled to the depreciation on the assets leased out, would not hold good in the present case as consumer durables are actually stock-in-trade in the business of the assessee on which there is no provision for allowance of depreciation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The judgments on which the reliance is placed by counsel for the assessee are of no assistance to him as in those cases the courts were considering as to whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of machinery owned by the assessee to third parties who use the machinery for manufacture of articles or things. It was proved by the assessee that the machinery owned by it had actually been leased out to a third party and on these facts it was held that the assessee would be entitled to the investment allowance under Section 32A. Whereas in the case before us the finding recorded is that the assessee neither actually owned the assets nor did it use it for its business. The transaction entered into by the assessee was for sale of the consumer durables by way of instalments. It is the assessee who chose and purchased the goods. The assessee had paid for the goods on behalf of the customer. Simultaneously, it debited the sale price to the account of the consumer and recovered the money due to it in instalments which included the cost of the assets as well as the interest on the money advanced by the assessee for the purchase of the goods. By the time the final instalment got paid, the principal as well as interest get wiped out and the consumer becomes the owner of the goods. The goods never come back to the assessee for leasing them to any other person. Though the transaction was termed as a lease deed, in fact that was in the nature of hire purchase/installment scheme.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The goods have to be considered as assets payable thereon. The assessee incurs expenditure on the cost of the goods at the time of purchase of the same. But immediately thereafter the assessee debits the respective customer in respect of the said entire cost. The cost of the goods incurred by the assessee thus becomes recoupable by it from its customers. Had the assessee been leasing out the goods then after the expiry of the lease period the leased goods would be returned to the assessee for further leasing. As pointed out earlier the consumer becomes the owner of the goods before the expiry of the lease period as he pays the purchase price of the goods along with interest by way of instalments. The assessee has not even declared the scrap value of the goods at any time during the life time of the goods or when the written down value becomes zero. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation on the goods which were stated to have been leased out by him to the authorised custo-mers. Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the asses-see and in favour of the Revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 : Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are interlinked and interdependent on each other and therefore, are taken up together. Immediately after incurring the expenditure on the cost of the goods, the assessee debits the respective customer in respect of the entire cost in his books and the cost of the goods incurred by the assessee becomes recoup-able by it from its customers. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accountancy. The assessee gets reimbursed by the customer in respect of the cost of the goods incurred by it although the actual payment may take some time under the deferred payment scheme. 'Actual cost' as defined under Section 43(1) means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority. As the assessee in his books of account debits the cost of the goods in the account of the customer and the customer becomes indebted to the extent of the entire cost along with interest, the actual cost of the assets in the hands of the assessee becomes nil immediately on purchase of the goods. It goes without saying that the depreciation cannot be allowed on the assets for which the actual cost is nil. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are also answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The questions stands answered accordingly. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(2001)166CTR(Kar)137; [2001]248ITR713(KAR); [2001]248ITR713(Karn); [2001]116TAXMAN375(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax', 'sub' => 'Direct Taxation', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '384899' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 43(1', (int) 2 => 'Section 143(1)(a', (int) 3 => 'Section 32', (int) 4 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 5 => 'Section 32', (int) 6 => 'Section 32', (int) 7 => 'Section 32A.', (int) 8 => 'Section 43(1' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Ashok Bhan', (int) 1 => 'Bangalore Bench', (int) 2 => 'I. T. A. No', (int) 3 => 'Questions Nos' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal', (int) 1 => 'Tribunal', (int) 2 => 'Tribunal', (int) 3 => 'Tribunal', (int) 4 => 'Tribunal', (int) 5 => 'Tribunal', (int) 6 => 'Tribunal', (int) 7 => 'Tribunal', (int) 8 => 'Tribunal', (int) 9 => 'Tribunal', (int) 10 => 'CIT', (int) 11 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 12 => 'CIT', (int) 13 => 'Tribunal' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'three', (int) 1 => '457', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3.', (int) 4 => '2', (int) 5 => '1,47,596', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'three', (int) 8 => '1', (int) 9 => '1993]199ITR409(KAR', (int) 10 => '1998]231ITR308(SC', (int) 11 => 'zero', (int) 12 => '1', (int) 13 => '2', (int) 14 => '3', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '3', (int) 17 => '2', (int) 18 => '3' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1961', (int) 1 => '1994', (int) 2 => 'September 12', (int) 3 => 'the assessment year 1991-92', (int) 4 => '1961', (int) 5 => '28th of January, 1992', (int) 6 => '142(1' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shaan Finance', (int) 1 => 'Shaan Finance' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third', (int) 1 => 'third' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '384899', 'acts' => 'Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32, 32A, 43, 142(1), 143(1), 143(2) and 256(1)', 'appealno' => 'I.T.R.C. No. 24 of 1996', 'appellant' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Gowri Shankar Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax', 'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - depreciation - Income Tax Act, 1961 - whether Tribunal justified in holding that assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation on consumer durables leased by applicant to various customers - assessee incurred expenditure on cost of goods at time of purchase of same - thereafter assessee debited respective customer in respect of said entire cost - had assessee been leasing out goods even after expiry of lease period would be returned to assessee for further leasing - assessee not even declared scrap value of goods at any time or when written down value becomes zero - High Court of opinion that Tribunal was right in holding that assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation - question referred to Court answered in affirmative and against assessee. - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Section 409: [V.G.Sabhahit,J] Misappropriation Prosecution against Secretary of Society - Trial Court convicted Appellate Court upheld judgment of Trial court Revision against Held, The First Appellate Court has proceeded on the basis that prosecution has proved that accused was working as Secretary and entrusted with duty of writing cash book etc. and had misappropriated amount. Appellate Court has not considered evidence of other witnesses. Swayed by the evidence of Auditor and accepted his evidence. Appellate Court not referred to the evidence of other witnesses in the light of fact elicited during cross-examination of Auditor. Evidence of third witness cannot be thrown to winds because this witness cannot be cross-examined because of his death after examination-in-chief. Evidence of other witnesses not helpful to prosecution. If evidence of auditor and other one witness is not held to be truthful evidence of other witnesses assume importance. Since High Court in exercise of revisional power cannot re-appreciate evidence, the matter remitted to First Appellate Court to pass fresh order after re-appreciating the evidence. - The assets on which the depreciation was claimed were consumer durables like TV, VCR, refrigerators and scooters etc. But the arrangements were made in such a manner that in the case of a good customer sticking to the terms of the agreement, the entire amount including the lease rent would get paid up before the expiry of the lease period. 1: Counsel for the assessee argued that an assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant or furniture and intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, etc. But, if an assessee is engaged in the letting out of his assets then he would be entitled to the depreciation in respect thereof as he remains the owner of assets as well as uses them for his business, the business being letting out the assets. It is like selling goods by way of equated instalments. The contention that the assessee remains the legal owner of the goods and he is engaged in the leasing business and, therefore, entitled to the depreciation on the assets leased out, would not hold good in the present case as consumer durables are actually stock-in-trade in the business of the assessee on which there is no provision for allowance of depreciation. Simultaneously, it debited the sale price to the account of the consumer and recovered the money due to it in instalments which included the cost of the assets as well as the interest on the money advanced by the assessee for the purchase of the goods. By the time the final instalment got paid, the principal as well as interest get wiped out and the consumer becomes the owner of the goods.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'G. Sarangan, Senior Adv., ;S. Parthasarathi and ;N.C. Ravikrishnan, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'E.R. Indra Kumar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-11-27', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Ashok Bhan and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Bhan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case. It arises from the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 457/B of 1994, dated September 12, 1994.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the claim of depreciation on the consumer durables which were leased by the applicant to various customers ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in concluding that there was no 'actual cost' incurred by the applicant as defined under Section 43(1) of the Act to justify the claim of depreciation ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in interpreting the lease rent received as a recovery of cost of materials leased to hold that the actual cost in the hands of the applicant as 'nil' ?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessee is a non-banking company engaged in the business of hire purchase and lease. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total loss of Rs. 1,47,596. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), on 28th of January, 1992. Later on notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and thereafter the assessment was framed by the assessing authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The assessee has two types of business that is hire purchase of vehicles and of leasing of consumer durables. We are referring to the facts regarding leasing business only as none of the questions pertain to hire purchase business of the assessee. The assessee claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the consumer durables/goods leased on the plea that the assets were owned by the assessee and were used by it in its business of leasing. The assessing authority, however, denied depreciation to the assessee on the said assets by holding that the assessee was neither the owner of the assets nor were assets to put to any commercial use by it. The assessee was getting the vouchers and other purchase documents made out in its name. It was also found that the assessee was arranging transaction of its leasing business in a way as if the legal ownership vests with it. But, however, it never came to possess the assets in reality. The assets were not shown in the schedule annexed to the balance-sheet of the assessee. It was also found that the assessee had never declared the 'scrap value of assets' during their life time even though their written down value had become zero. The assets on which the depreciation was claimed were consumer durables like TV, VCR, refrigerators and scooters etc., and therefore there was no question of those assets being put to any commercial use by the assessee. On these findings the assessing authority concluded that the transactions entered into by the assessee with its customers were in fact not leasing transactions inasmuch as the goods were never returned to the assessee at the end of the lease period. The Assessing Officer, therefore, declined to allow depreciation on the assets.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The assessee being aggrieved against the order of the assessing authority filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concurred with the view taken by the assessing authority and dismissed the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee filed a further appeal before the Tribunal which was also dismissed. It was found by the Tribunal that the leasing business of the assessee was of such a nature that the assessee nominally purchased the consumer durables and immediately handed them over to its customers. It is the customers themselves who chose the consumer durables and also arranged for their purchase. The assessee provided finance for purchasing the goods. In the books of the assessee, the customers become indebted tothe entire cost of goods along with interest or so-called 'lease rent' payable thereon. The agreements are drawn up in such a manner that the assessee would remain the owner of the goods till the full payments are made. But the arrangements were made in such a manner that in the case of a good customer sticking to the terms of the agreement, the entire amount including the lease rent would get paid up before the expiry of the lease period. The ownership of the goods thereafter would pass on from the assessee to the customers and they would not be required to return the goods to the assessee. On these findings, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Thereafter on an application made by the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has referred, the three questions of law already reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Question No. 1: Counsel for the assessee argued that an assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant or furniture and intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, etc., if he owns the assets and uses them for the purpose of business/profession. For this he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. : [1993]199ITR409(KAR) which was later on affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. : [1998]231ITR308(SC) . The assessee being engaged in the business of leasing out/letting out of his articles, remains the owner of the assets and uses them for its business and, therefore, would be entitled to the depreciation claimed under Section 32 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. We do not find merit in the submission of counsel for the assessee on the given facts and circumstances of the case. Ordinarily, the lessor is not entitled to claim depreciation on the assets leased by him because, in that case, the leased out asset is used for the purpose of business/profession of the lessee and not that of the lessor. But, if an assessee is engaged in the letting out of his assets then he would be entitled to the depreciation in respect thereof as he remains the owner of assets as well as uses them for his business, the business being letting out the assets. In the present case, on the findings recorded (which have not been challenged) we find that the transaction entered into by the appellant were in fact not lease transaction but sale of goods on instalment basis. It is the customers, who themselves chose the consumer durables and arranged for their purchase. The assessee provided the finance and in the books of the assessee, the customer become indebted to the extent of the entire cost of the goods along with interest or so called 'lease rent' payable thereon. The arrangements are made in such a way that if a customer sticks to the terms of the agreement, then, the entire amount including the lease rent gets paid up before tbe expiry of the period of lease and the ownership of the goods passes on from the assessee to the customer automatically. The customers are notrequired to return the goods to the assessee. It is like selling goods by way of equated instalments. The contention that the assessee remains the legal owner of the goods and he is engaged in the leasing business and, therefore, entitled to the depreciation on the assets leased out, would not hold good in the present case as consumer durables are actually stock-in-trade in the business of the assessee on which there is no provision for allowance of depreciation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The judgments on which the reliance is placed by counsel for the assessee are of no assistance to him as in those cases the courts were considering as to whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of machinery owned by the assessee to third parties who use the machinery for manufacture of articles or things. It was proved by the assessee that the machinery owned by it had actually been leased out to a third party and on these facts it was held that the assessee would be entitled to the investment allowance under Section 32A. Whereas in the case before us the finding recorded is that the assessee neither actually owned the assets nor did it use it for its business. The transaction entered into by the assessee was for sale of the consumer durables by way of instalments. It is the assessee who chose and purchased the goods. The assessee had paid for the goods on behalf of the customer. Simultaneously, it debited the sale price to the account of the consumer and recovered the money due to it in instalments which included the cost of the assets as well as the interest on the money advanced by the assessee for the purchase of the goods. By the time the final instalment got paid, the principal as well as interest get wiped out and the consumer becomes the owner of the goods. The goods never come back to the assessee for leasing them to any other person. Though the transaction was termed as a lease deed, in fact that was in the nature of hire purchase/installment scheme.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The goods have to be considered as assets payable thereon. The assessee incurs expenditure on the cost of the goods at the time of purchase of the same. But immediately thereafter the assessee debits the respective customer in respect of the said entire cost. The cost of the goods incurred by the assessee thus becomes recoupable by it from its customers. Had the assessee been leasing out the goods then after the expiry of the lease period the leased goods would be returned to the assessee for further leasing. As pointed out earlier the consumer becomes the owner of the goods before the expiry of the lease period as he pays the purchase price of the goods along with interest by way of instalments. The assessee has not even declared the scrap value of the goods at any time during the life time of the goods or when the written down value becomes zero. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation on the goods which were stated to have been leased out by him to the authorised custo-mers. Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the asses-see and in favour of the Revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 : Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are interlinked and interdependent on each other and therefore, are taken up together. Immediately after incurring the expenditure on the cost of the goods, the assessee debits the respective customer in respect of the entire cost in his books and the cost of the goods incurred by the assessee becomes recoup-able by it from its customers. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accountancy. The assessee gets reimbursed by the customer in respect of the cost of the goods incurred by it although the actual payment may take some time under the deferred payment scheme. 'Actual cost' as defined under Section 43(1) means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority. As the assessee in his books of account debits the cost of the goods in the account of the customer and the customer becomes indebted to the extent of the entire cost along with interest, the actual cost of the assets in the hands of the assessee becomes nil immediately on purchase of the goods. It goes without saying that the depreciation cannot be allowed on the assets for which the actual cost is nil. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are also answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The questions stands answered accordingly. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(2001)166CTR(Kar)137; [2001]248ITR713(KAR); [2001]248ITR713(Karn); [2001]116TAXMAN375(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax', 'sub' => 'Direct Taxation', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '384899' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 256(1, Section 43(1, Section 143(1)(a, Section 32, Section 256(1, Section 32, Section 32, Section 32A., Section 43(1
PERSON: Ashok Bhan, Bangalore Bench, I. T. A. No, Questions Nos
ORG: Appellate Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, CIT, the Supreme Court, CIT, Tribunal
CARDINAL: three, 457, 2, 3., 2, 1,47,596, two, three, 1, 1993]199ITR409(KAR, 1998]231ITR308(SC, zero, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3
DATE: 1961, 1994, September 12, the assessment year 1991-92, 1961, 28th of January, 1992, 142(1
WORK_OF_ART: Shaan Finance, Shaan Finance
ORDINAL: third, third