Supreme CourtFull Bench(2000) 12 SC CK 0043

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 5 December 2000 · Citation: (2001) 166 CTR 214 : (2004) 9 SCC 361

HON’BLE JUDGES
Y.K. Sabharwal, J · S.P. Bharucha, J · N. Santosh Hegde, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 1998 From Judgment and Order dt. 10-2-1997 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases No. 316 of 1982, reported as Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 399 (Mad) 5 December 2000 A.Y. 1973-74 and 1974-75

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 306 words

The question for consideration in this appeal by the assessee against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Madras reads thus :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to depreciation and/or development rebate as claimed in respect of assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?"

The High Court answered the question in the negative and against the assessee. The authorities and the Tribunal had also taken the view that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the two assessment years in question, namely, assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the previous years whereof ended on 31-3-1973, and 31-3-1974, respectively.

2.

Learned counsel on behalf of the assessee had placed great emphasis upon the decision of this court in M/s Mysore Minerals Limited, M.G. Road, Bangalore Vs. The Commissioners of Income Tax, Karnataka, Bangalore, which has interpreted the word 'owned' in section 32 broadly. It did so in the following circumstances :

The assessee before it had purchased certain houses from the Housing Board and had made part payment thereof. It had acquired possession of the houses but the deed of conveyance was not executed until after the financial year in question. Even so, the assessee's claim for depreciation of the buildings, which it had used for the purpose of its business, was upheld on the basis that it had acquired dominion over the buildings.

3.

We will assume the correctness of the judgment but, on the facts found, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that the assessee had acquired dominion over the mills in question. There is nothing on the record which indicates this nor is that the finding of the Tribunal.

In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with costs.