Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
Hotel Radhika vs Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 28 June, 1995
Showing the contexts in which t.n. aravinda reddy appears in the document
Change context size
Current

It is against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T. N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46 and submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) is liable to be set aside.

5. As against this, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the revenue authorities and submitted that by no dint of imagination, it could be said that the assessee has purchased the computer and as such, the assessee is not entitled to the claim of investment allowance and depreciation.

6. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the revenue authorities and the decision of the Honble Supreme Court. In the case of T. N. Aravinda Reddy (supra), the Honble Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. T. N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 116 ITR 551. The question before the Honble High Court was when some of the members of HUF relinquished their rights in favour of the assessee and whether this would constitute ownership right in the assessee. The Honble High Court held that the assessee by virtue of the release deed of other members of the HUF, acquired the title of the house. Distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kuppuswami Chettiar v. Arumugam Chettiar AIR 1967 SC 1395, the Honble High Court held that the release deed can be usefully employed as a form of conveyance by a person having right or interest in the property in favour of any other person and ownership right can be transferred to another person, having no title in respect of the property, by using words of sufficient amplitude in the release deed. Affirming the decision of the Honble High Court, speaking for the Court, the Honble Justice Shri V. R. Krishna Iyer held that the word "purchase" in section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had to be given its common meaning, viz, buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration.

8. In the light of the above discussion and also in the light of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Aravinda Reddy (supra), we are in agreement with the arguments of the learned Authorised Representative.

9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.