TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to folk lifting truck of higher rate of deprecation. On the perusal of the findings of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujco Carrier it is clear that types of cranes having with the assessee are completely of different from categories mentioned in the decision of Hon'able jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujco Carrier and in the instruction no.617 of the CBDT. We observe that all the 7 categories of cranes on which higher rate of depreciation were claimed were not integral part of truck crane as elaborated above in the judicial findings except the hydra crane being mounted on the truck on which the ld. CIT(A) has correctly allowed the higher rate of depreciation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 960 /Ahd/2015, ITA No. 1049 /Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2018 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. For the Assessee : Shri T.P. Hemani, A.R. ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- These two appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12, arise from order of the CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad dated 29-01-2015, in proceedings under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egory of Heavy Motor Vehicle . 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The brief fact of the case is that return of income declaring income of ₹ 80,64,260/- was filed on 29th Sep, 2011. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) on 15th Nov, 2013. The assessee is engaged in the business of hiring out construction material and equipment. On scrutiny, the assessing officer has noticed that assessee has claimed depreciation on cranes on higher rate @ 30%. After perusal of the nature of business and other details filed by the assessee, the assessing officer observed that assessee has claimed total depreciation of ₹ 1,95,04,909/- on cranes during the year. However, as per the income tax rules, the allowable rate of depreciation is 15% on plant and machinery. He further observed that as per IT rules higher rate of depreciation @ 30% is applicable in the case of motor buses, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same. In its submission, the assessee has mainly referred to the hydra cranes. The assessing officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee stating that the cranes used by the assesse are not truck cranes and the same are not falling in the category of heavy motor vehicles. Consequently, he has restricted the claim of deprecation @ 15% as against the claim of deprecation of the asssessee @ 30%. 5. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by stating that only hydra cranes can be termed as mobile cranes and eligible for higher depreciation @ 30%. The relevant part of the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- As it can be seen from the description of these cranes that tower crane , crawler crane, railroad crane, telescopic crane as described by there definition and there pictures also that by any imagination these types of cranes cannot be termed as mobile cranes. As defined very clearly they are rather fixed types of cranes hence even cannot be even categorized as mobile cranes hence they are not eligible for higher rates of depreciation. Even tipper is also, has mobility as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only. Accordingly, higher depreciation on the other types of cranes are hereby denied. Hence the appeal on this ground is partly allowed. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has furnished paper book containing details of submission made before the assessing officer and ld. CIT(A). During the course of assessment and appellate proceedings, he has contended that assessee is eligible for depreciation on higher rate in the case of Telescopic Crane, Rail for Tower Crane, Tower Crane, Mobile Tower Crane, Crawler Cranes and Tower Crane Masts. He has also placed reliance on the judicial pronouncement in the case of Bothra Shipping Services vs. CIT-XII, Kolkatta (2010) 8 taxman.com 62(Kol) dated 16th July, 2010. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has vehemently supported the order of assessing officer and also contended that ld. CIT(A) is not right in allowing depreciation @ 30% on hydra crane without considering the detailed finding of assessing officer. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record carefully. As per profit and loss account for the year 31st March, 2011 the assessee has shown income f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
