2009 (1) TMI 20 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue allege that Tribunal erred in allowing higher depreciation @ 50%/40% on the value of trucks/dumpers owned by the assessee revenue contend that assessee was only a civil contractor & was not engaged in the business of wisely out asset i.e. trucks/dumpers transportation - In view of Circular No. 609 higher rate of depreciation is also admissible when the motor lorry is used by the assessees in his own business of transportation of goods on hire no infirmity in tribunal s order

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act regarding depreciation on trucks/dumpers owned by the assessee for assessment years 1991-92 and 1996-97.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the correct interpretation of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act and whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the value of trucks/dumpers owned. The appellant argued that the authorities should have considered whether the appellant was in the business of transportation and if the vehicles were used in said business, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. Vs. Gupta Global Exim (P) Ltd. The C.I.T. for the assessment year 1996-97 found that the appellant was involved in transporting earth from one place to another, even though the earth did not belong to the assessee. The tribunal also noted that the appellant had shown transportation income from third parties in the same year. Based on these findings, the C.I.T. (A) concluded that the appellant was entitled to depreciation at a higher rate.

The tribunal relied on Circular No. 652 dated 14.6.1997 issued by the C.B.D.T., which clarified the rate of depreciation on motor lorries used in the business of transportation of goods. The circular stated that higher depreciation is admissible when motor lorries are used in the assessee's own business of transportation of goods on hire. It further clarified that the higher rate of depreciation would not apply if the vehicles were used in some other non-hiring business of the assessee. Considering the findings of the C.I.T. (A), the Board's Circular, and the judgment of the Supreme Court, the court found no error in the orders of the CIT (A) and the I.T.A.T.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the appellant was entitled to depreciation at a higher rate for the trucks/dumpers owned, as they were used in the business of transportation of goods on hire.