DINESHKUMAR GULABCHAND AGRAWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a question as framed in the appeal memo and tried to contend that even if the vehicle was not actually used but since it was ready for use, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of depreciation on such assets. He sought to place reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 613. In the above judgment, this court was concerned with the interpretation of the expression "use" or "used", whereas we are concerned with the interpretation of the word "used". It appears that after the above judgment, there was an amendment to Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, The word "used" denotes actually used and not merely ready for use. The expression "used" means actually used for the purposes of the business. The view is taken by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.