A. KALYANASUNDARAM, A.M.: ld. counsel of assessee, Mr. G. D. Gargieya submitted that in this appeal of assessee there are two grounds of appeal, which have been taken and main amount is in respect of allowability of depreciation on truck and trolley owned and used by appellant for its business, which is running of transport. Mr. G. D. Gargieya submitted that truck was purchased in nam e of Shri G. L. Jain out of financial assistance of Rajasthan Financial Corporation. There was agreement between Shri G. L. Jain and assessee dt. 10th Dec., 1979 by which agreement, Mr. Jain indicated that since he was residing in Bombay and engaged in service there, he could not utilise vehicle. Mr. Jain mentioned in agreement that he wanted to provide source of livelihood for his own parents and thereby merely leaded his name for purpose of obtaining loan from financial institution. Mr. Gargieya further submitted that by this agreement truck was handed over to assessee for consideration of Rs. 26,77,833. In para 2 of this agreement, it has been categorically mentioned that Mr. Jain has no right, title or interest in said vehicle and, for all purposes, assessee is its owner. It was agreed in para 4 that it would be liability of assessee to pay back loan taken from RFC and Shri Jain would indemnify if there is any claim on this account on him. Mr. Gargieya also referred to p. 4 which is agreement dt. 1st Dec., 1978, which is agreement prior to date mentioned earlier on same line. Mr. Gargieya submitted that only ground of Department in not allowing claim of depreciation to assessee was that truck was not transferred in favour of assessee. Mr. Gargieya relied on Allahabad High Court judgment in case of Addl. CIT vs. U. P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (1981) 20 CTR (All) 141: (1981) 127 ITR 97 (All), which talks of depreciation and has held that depreciation is allowable to beneficial owner if it is found that beneficial owner is actually in possession of property and also use property for its business. Mr. Gargieya, therefore, submitted that facts and circumstances being identical with that of assessee s case, claim of assessee is fully allowable. He relied on Sardar Jogender Singh Saluja vs. ITO (1981) 11 TTJ (Ind) 537, Curious House (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1980) 9 TTJ (Ind) 348, ITO vs. Golden View Electrical Industries (P) Ltd. (1981) 12 TTJ (Asr) 416, CIT vs. Salkia Transport Associates (1983) 33 CTR (Cal) 198: (1983) 143 ITR 39 (Cal), Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1982) 137 ITR 97 (Del), CIT vs. Amber Corpn. (1981) 127 ITR 29 (Raj). Mr. Singh, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that since higher purchase agreement was in name of Shri G. L. Jain, agreement between G. L. Jain and assessee is of no avail. Further, nothing prevented assessee to get property, i.e., truck transferred in its name by obtaining necessary sanction from Rajasthan Financial Corporation. This was not done. He, therefore, supported order to ITO and AAC. We have heard parties and have considered various materials. agreement of transfer dt. 10th Feb., 1979 is very clear and, in fact, on fact that Shri Jain had got loan in his name as RFC was prepared to recognise only him. It is also clear that intention to purchase truck was for purpose of business of assessee and Shri G. L. Jain has merely lent his name. There would have been no necessity of Mr. G. L. Jain coming in picture, but for fact that RFC seem to recognise only Mr. Jain. intention being to own truck by assessee and, also, in fact, assessee has been using truck with full title, right and interest, assessee could be said to be owner though property is not transferred in its name. We draw support form U. P. Agro Industries, Allahabad High Court decision, supra. We have no hesitation in upholding contention of assessee and allowing claim. depreciation of Rs. 64,090 on truck and trolley is, therefore, allowable to assessee. second ground Mr. Gargieya submitted is in respect of disallowance of Rs. 1,800 out of travelling miscellaneous expenses and repair expenses. Mr. Gargieya submitted that they have been disallowed as there have been no log book and certain expenses not vouched. Mr. Gargieya by referring to pp. 8 & 9, submitted that for petty repairs nobody submits any bill and consider total quantum of expenditure on repairs which is about 3506 and travelling expenses only Rs. 2,300 and other petty expenses Rs. 5,081, disallowance is not called for. Mr. Singh submitted that since expenses are not fully vouched, assessee is not entitled to any relief. We have heard parties and considered material on record. In view of fact that expenses are not fully vouched and taking into account totality of expenditure, we feel that disallowance is slightly excessive. We allow assessee relief of Rs. 800 and disallowance is restricted to Rs. 1,000 only. In result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed. *** JAIN TRANSPORT CO. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER