Case Laws Analysis
Relied on HCL Comnet Ltd. v. DCIT 2021 TaxPub(DT) 4741 (Del-Trib)
Followed on Rato Dratsang v. ITO 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1710 (Karn-HC)
Relied on DCIT v. Ebix Software India (P) Ltd. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 4223 (Del-Trib)
Followed on IBM India (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3023 (Bang-Trib)
Relied on Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. ACIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6808 (Ahd-Trib)
Distinguished on Vectra Investments (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 5150 (Bang-Trib)
Relied on Industrial Development Bank of India v. Jt. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 4618 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Mercury Car Rentals (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2619 (Kol-Trib)
Followed on CIT v. Shriram Chits & Investments (P) Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4937 (Mad-HC)
Relied on Sthapati Architecture & Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3096 (Ahd-Trib)
Relied on Tata Motors Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1732 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on DCIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2038 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on CIT v. Apollo Finvest India Ltd. 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1489 (Bom-HC)
Applied on Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5470 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5470 (Mum-Trib)
Distinguished on State Bank of India v. Dy. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3672 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on CIT v. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2486 (Bom-HC)
Followed on HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Jt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1469 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 0696 (Del-HC)
Followed on ICICI Ltd. & Ors. v. Jt. CIT & Ors. 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3289 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on UTI Bank Ltd. v. ACIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0380 (Ahd-Trib)
Followed on Damodar Mangalji Mining Co. v. Jt. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0071 (Bom-HC)
Followed on CIT v. H.B. Leasing & Finance Ltd. 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2983 (Del-HC)
Followed on Parle Soft Drinks (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2751 (Mum-Trib)
 
The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0414 (SC) : (2013) 049 (I) ITCL 0313 : (2013) 350 ITR 0527 : (2013) 255 CTR 0449 : (2013) 212 TAXMAN 0550 : (2013) 082 DTR 0033

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--DepreciationAllowability Assessee being a finance company--The assessee was a non-banking finance company. It was engaged in the business of hire purchase, leasing and real estate etc. The vehicles, on which depreciation was claimed, were stated to have been purchased by the assessee against direct payment to the manufacturers. The assessee, as a part of its business, leased out these vehicles to its customers and thereafter, had no physical affiliation with the vehicles. In fact, lessees were registered as the owners of the vehicles, in the certificate of registration issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The assessee claimed depreciation in relation to certain assets, (additions made to the trucks) which had been financed by the assessee but registered in the name of third parties. The assessee also claimed depreciation at a higher rate on the ground that the vehicles were used in the business of running on hire. The assessing officer disallowed claims, both of depreciation and higher rate, on the ground that the assessee's use of these vehicles was only by way of leasing out to others and not as actual user of the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. It had merely financed the purchase of these assets and was neither the owner nor user of these assets. Held Section 32 requires that the assessee must use the asset for the 'purposes of business'. It does not mandate usage of the asset by the assessee itself. As long as the asset is utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee, the requirement of section 32 will stand satisfied, notwithstanding non-usage of the asset itself by the assessee Therefore, on a combined reading of section 2(13) and section 2(24) of the Act, the income derived from leasing of the trucks would be business income, or income derived in the course of business, and had been so assessed. Hence, it fulfilled the requirement of section 32 of the Act viz. that the asset must be used in the course of business. The assessee did use the vehicles in the course of its leasing business. The fact that the trucks themselves were not used by the assessee is irrelevant for the purpose of the section. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation at a higher rate on vehicles leased out.

We would like to dispose of the second contention before considering the first. Revenue argued that since the lessees were actually using the vehicles, they were the ones entitled to claim depreciation, and not the assessee. We are not persuaded to agree with the argument. The section requires that the assessee must use the asset for the 'purposes of business'. It does not mandate usage of the asset by the assessee itself. As long as the asset is utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee, the requirement of section 32 will stand satisfied, notwithstanding non-usage of the asset itself by the assessee. In the present case before us, the assessee is a leasing company which leases out trucks that it purchases. Therefore, on a combined reading of section 2(13) and section 2(24) of the Act, the income derived from leasing of the trucks would be business income, or income derived in the course of business, and has been so assessed. Hence, it fulfills the aforesaid second requirement of section 32 of the Act viz. that the asset must be used in the course of business. [Para 15] We may now advert to the first requirement i.e. the issue of ownership. No depreciation allowance is granted in respect of any capital expenditure which the assessee may be obliged to incur on the property of others. Therefore, the entire case hinges on the question of ownership; if the assessee is the owner of the vehicles, then he will be entitled to the claim on depreciation, otherwise, not. [para 19] A scrutiny of the material facts at hand raises a presumption of ownership in favour of the assessee. The vehicle, along with its keys, was delivered to the assessee upon which, the lease agreement was entered into by the assessee with the customer. Moreover, the relevant clauses of the agreement between the assessee and the customer specifically provided that: (i) The assessee was the exclusive owner of the vehicle at all points of time; (ii) If the lessee committed a default, the assessee was empowered to re-possess the vehicle (and not merely recover money from the customer); (iii) At the conclusion of the lease period, the lessee was obliged to return the vehicle to the assessee; (iv) The assessee had the right of inspection of the vehicle at all times. [Para 22] The Revenue's objection to the claim of the assessee is founded on the lease agreement. It argued that at the end of the lease period, the ownership of the vehicle is transferred to the lessee at a nominal value not exceeding 1% of the original cost of the vehicle, making the assessee in effect a financer. However we are not persuaded to agree with the Revenue. As long as the assessee has a right to retain the legal title of the vehicle against the rest of the world, it would be the owner of the vehicle in the eyes of law. A scrutiny of the sale agreement cannot be the basis of raising question against the ownership of the vehicle. The clues qua ownership lie in the lease agreement itself, which clearly point in favour of the assessee. We agree with the following observations of the Tribunal in this regard: '20. It is evident from the above that after the lessee takes possession of the vehicle under a lease deed from the appellant-company it (sic.) shall be paying lease rent as prescribed in the schedule. The ownership of the vehicles would vest with the appellant-company viz., ICDS as per clause (4) of the agreement of lease. As per clause (9) of the Lease agreement, M/s. ICDS is having right of inspection at any time it wants. As per clause (18) of the Lease agreement, in case of default of lease rent, in addition to expenses, interest etc. the appellant company is entitled to take possession of the vehicle that was leased out. Finally, as per clause (19), on the expiry of the lease tenure, the lessee should return the vehicle to the appellant company in working order. 21. It is true that a lease of goods or rental or hiring agreement is a contract under which one party for reward allows another the use of goods. A lease may be for a specified period or in perpetuity. A lease differs from a hire purchase agreement in that lessee or hirer, is not given an option to purchase the goods. A hiring agreement or lease unlike a hire purchase agreement is a contract of bailment, plain and simple with no element of sale inherent. A bailment has been defined in section 48 of the Indian Contract Act, as 'the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. 22. From the above discussion, it is clear that the transactions occurring in the business of the assessee-appellant are leases under agreement, but not hire purchase transactions. In fact, they are transactions of 'hire'. Even viewed from the angle of the author of 'Lease Financing and Hire Purchase', the views of whom were discussed in pages 16 and 17 of this order, the transactions involved in the appellant business are nothing but lease transactions. 23. As far as the factual portion is concerned now we could come to a conclusion that leasing of vehicles is nothing but hiring of vehicles. These two aspects are one and the same. However, we shall discuss the case law cited by both the parties on the point.' [Para 23] The only hindrance to the claim of the assessee, which is also the lynchpin of the case of the Revenue, is section 2(30) of the MV Act, which defines ownership as follows: - 'owner' means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of a hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.' The general opening words of the section say that the owner of a motor vehicle is the one in whose name it is registered, which, in the present case, is the lessee. The subsequent specific statement on leasing agreements states that in respect of a vehicle given on lease, the lessee who is in possession shall be the owner. The Revenue thus, argued that in case of ownership of vehicles, the test of ownership is the registration and certification. Since the certificates were in the name of the lessee, they would be the legal owners of the vehicles and the ones entitled to claim depreciation. Therefore, the general and specific statements on ownership construe ownership in favour of the lessee, and hence, are in favour of the Revenue. We do not find merit in the Revenue's argument for more than one reason: (i) section 2(30) is a deeming provision that creates a legal fiction of ownership in favour of lessee only for the purpose of the MV Act. It defines ownership for the subsequent provisions of the MV Act, not for the purpose of law in general. It serves more as a guide to what terms in the MV Act mean. Therefore, if the MV Act at any point uses the term owner in any section, it means the one in whose name the vehicle is registered and in the case of a lease agreement, the lessee. That is all. It is not a statement of law on ownership in general. Perhaps, the repository of a general statement of law on ownership may be the Sale of Goods Act; (ii) section 2(30) of the MV Act must be read in consonance with sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 51 of the MV Act. Therefore, the MV Act mandates that during the period of lease, the vehicle be registered, in the certificate of registration, in the name of the lessee and, on conclusion of the lease period, the vehicle be registered in the name of lessor as owner. The section leaves no choice to the lessor but to allow the vehicle to be registered in the name of the lessee Thus, no inference can be drawn from the registration certificate as to ownership of the legal title of the vehicle; and (iii) if the lessee was in fact the owner, he would have claimed depreciation on the vehicles, which, as specifically recorded in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, was not done. It would be a strange situation to have no claim of depreciation in case of a particular depreciable asset due to a vacuum of ownership. As afore-noted, the entire lease rent received by the assessee is assessed as business income in its hands and the entire lease rent paid by the lessee has been treated as deductible revenue expenditure in the hands of the lessee. This reaffirms the position that the assessee is in fact the owner of the vehicle, in so far as section 32 of the Act is concerned. [Paras 24 to 26] Therefore, in the facts of the present case, we hold that the lessor i.e. the assessee is the owner of the vehicles. As the owner, it used the assets in the course of its business, satisfying both requirements of section 32 of the Act and hence, is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of additions made to the trucks, which were leased out. With regard to the claim of the assessee for a higher rate of depreciation, the import of the same term 'purposes of business', used in the second proviso to section 32(1) of the Act gains significance. We are of the view that the interpretation of these words would not be any different from that which we ascribed to them earlier, under section 32 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfills even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation, and hence is entitled to the same. [Paras 29 & 30]

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com