The question referred to us for opinion is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the provisions of S. 10(2)(vi), the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the value of the buildings amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-for the assessment year 1956-57 ?" The assessee is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. By a resolution dated the 20th December, 1954 passed by the Board of Direc­tors of the Company, the assesses company entered into an agreement on the 22nd December 1954 with Sri R. G. Saharia, Managing Director of the company for the pur­chase of a building consisting of a two-storied house, office and garage together with some land. The price was agreed upon to be Rs. 2,50,000/- and the consideration was adjusted with the account of Sri R. G. Saharia during 1955. The company took full possession of the property after the adjustment of the account. The sale dead was, however, executed and registered on the 25th March 1961. For the assessment years 1956-57, 57-58 and 58-59 the assessee claimed depreciation on the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- the price agreed upon between the parties. It appears that as some dispute between several persons as to the ownership of the property had been referred to an arbi­trator, the sale deed could not be executed till after the award was finalised on the 25th March. 1961. The de­partment disallowed the depreciation to the assessee on the ground that during the period of assessment the assessee had not become the owner of the property and. thus the assessee was not entitled to any depreciation. (2) Relevant portions of S. 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 provide as follows: "10. (1) The tax shall be payable by an assesses under the head 'profits and gains of business, profession or vocation' in respect of the profits or gains of any busi­ness, profession or vocation carried on by him. (2) Relevant portions of S. 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 provide as follows: "10. (1) The tax shall be payable by an assesses under the head 'profits and gains of business, profession or vocation' in respect of the profits or gains of any busi­ness, profession or vocation carried on by him. (2) Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely: X XXX XX (vi) in respect of depreciation of such buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being the property of the assessee, a sum equivalent, where the asset's are ships other than ships ordinarily plying on inland waters to such percentage on the original cost thereof to the asses­see as may in any case or class of cases be prescribed and in other case, to such percentage on the written down value thereof as may, in any case or class of cases be prescribed xxxxxx." (3) The Tribunal has held that unless the assesses is the owner of the building which he uses for the pur­pose of his business, he is not entitled to claim depre­ciation in respect of the said building. The assessee's contention is that for all practical purposes he had be­come the owner of the building, inasmuch as possession has been obtained by him on payment of the full conside­ration a sale has been defined under S. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. A contract for the sale of immovable property is a con­tract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. A con­tract by itself thus cannot create any interest in or charge on the property. (4) Mr. Lahiri's contention, however, is (hat in the present case, apart from the contract, there was the ac­tual delivery of possession and payment of consideration. Unless it can be said that the payment of consideration and the possession itself constitutes a completed sale between the parties, so as to pass .the ownership of the property to the assessee, it cannot be said that the pro­perty belongs to the assessee. Mr. Lahiri has thus contended that the words 'being the property of the assessee' in S. 10 (2) (vi) has a wider connotation. Mr. Lahiri has thus contended that the words 'being the property of the assessee' in S. 10 (2) (vi) has a wider connotation. It does not necessarily mean that the assessee should become the owner of the building. He has drawn our attention to the language employed in S. 32 of the present Income-tax Act. In this section the legislature has used the word 'owned' specifically. When the section is read as a whole there cannot be any doubt that under S. 10 (2) (vi) an assesses cannot claim depreciation, unless he is the owner of the building. The word 'property' in the sub­section relates to the buildings in respect of which the assesses is claiming depreciation and in which he is carrying on his business and the words 'being the pro­perty of the assessee1 can have only one meaning, name­ly, that the property, that is, the building in respect of which he is claiming depreciation is the property which belongs to him. The only answer to the question as to whether the property can be said to be the property of the assessee in the case would be in the negative. By no means the property could be described as the property of the assessee unless the actual sale deed was executed, The language, in our opinion, is quite plain. (5) Mr. Lahiri says that the word 'property' does not necessarily mean the full ownership of the property. The ownership consists of certain bundle of rights and any one of those rights by itself or some of them taken to­gether may constitute in the eye of law property. Whe­ther the other rights short of the ownership right can be regarded as property is not the question before us, be­cause the word 'property' in the section relates to the buildings and not to any right in the building it self. The only question is whether the property in respect of which the depreciation is claimed, should belong to the assessas or only if he has any equitable right in that building, he can claim depreciation, As we have already pointed out, the language of the section is very clear. (6) Reliance is placed by Mr. Choudhuri for the De­partment on the case of Sardar Tara Singh v. Commr. of income-tax' reported in (1963) 47 ITR 756 (Madh Pra). (6) Reliance is placed by Mr. Choudhuri for the De­partment on the case of Sardar Tara Singh v. Commr. of income-tax' reported in (1963) 47 ITR 756 (Madh Pra). In that case the question was whether the person who was carrying on the business of motor transport could claim depreciation in respect of the buses which he had pur­chased on hire purchase system. It' was held that he could not claim it as he was not the owner of the pro­perty till the entire instalments have been paid and the property stood transferred to him. Mr. Lahiri points out that in that case full consideration had not been paid. What their lordships of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have held in this case is that the words 'being the pro­perty of the assessee' mean that the property must be owned by the assessee and not only that the assessee has acquired some equitable interest in it. Unless it can, therefore, be said that the payment of the consideration and the delivery of the buses constitues a completed sale in the eye of law, it cannot be said that the assessee ac­quired full rights of ownership in the property. In the result we answer the question in the negative. The as­sessee was not entitled to claim any depreciation on the value of the building amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- for the assessment year. (7) We make no order as to cost. Answered accordingly