9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing so, the CIT referred to the contention of the assessee that the Tribunal was allowing depreciation at 30 per cent where the rigs were mounted on motor lorries, as was the position in the present case and, therefore, allowance of depreciation at 30 per cent was correctly claimed, and there was no mistake which was prejudicial to the Revenue, and the order of the ITO was, therefore, not erroneous. The CIT, as we have already mentioned, had directed modification of the assessments. 2. Before us, the assessee pleaded that the CIT did not have jurisdiction to revise the assessments since they were not erroneous because the ITO's finding accepting the assessee's plea for the grant of depreciation was in conformity with the decisions of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble High Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in allowing 30 per cent depreciation on rig and compress or used in boring of wells in accordance with the Entry D(4) of the Depreciation Schedule under the IT Rules, 1962?" The relevant portion of the finding of the Hon'ble High Court in this regard is as under: "The Tribunal applied its mind carefully to determine the question under consideration. It found that the drilling equipment is liable to be categorised as 'construction equipment' according to the information furnished from McGraw Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology the end. 1982, pages 497 and 498. The Tribunal extracted the information from the Encyclopaedia to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent through a lot of factual information before recording the finding that the drilling equipment utilised by the assessee in its business answered the description against item D(4). We have no reason to come to contrary conclusion. The learned standing counsel pointed out that earth-moving machinery referred to against item D(4) should be employed in heavy construction works like dams, tunnels, canals. It is claimed that this drilling equipment is not so employed and consequently this Court cannot consider the use of the drilling equipment as satisfying for the purpose of the description given against item D(4). It should be borne in mind that the description given against time D(4) is not exhaustive but merely illustrative. It is clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
