TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see for transport of water - The explanation that was offered on behalf of the assessee that the tanker was used for transporting water on hire, to check the leakages, if any, the hire charges were allowed to be taken by the driver cannot be accepted - the tanker was not used during the closure of the accounting year – thus, the order of the Tribunal denying the depreciation is upheld – Decided ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of assessment proceedings, appellant claimed depreciation on the vehicle. On verification of the account books produced, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed to have conducted a trial run of the tanker on 30th and 31st March, 1996 for supply of water to a hotel at Vijaywada. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for depreciation by quoting Section 32 (1) of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has also recorded a finding that no work of transport of petroleum products before 31.03.1996 by BPCL was entrusted to the assessee muchless the tanker in question was put to trial use. It observed that simply because the tanker was registered and kept ready for use, it does not qualify the depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. Sri Shiva Karthikeya, learned counsel for the assessee submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve perused the orders of the assessing authority, appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. All the authorities had categorically held that the tanker in question was not used during the accounting year. The Tribunal has also had recorded a finding that there was a discrepancy even about the in the hire charges said to have been received by the assessee for transport of water. The explanation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
