TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d JM referred to decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. [ 1998 (3) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] to the effect that where the business of assessee consist of hiring out machinery and where the income is derived by the assessee from the hiring of such machinery, the assessee must be considered as having used the machinery for the purposes of its business. In the ultimate analysis, the ld JM observed that for purposes of section 32, the word used means use of an asset for the purpose of business of assessee and do not refer to the use of asset by the hirer. Once a machinery is hired out, that mayor may not be used by the hirer. The lessor company has put the machinery into use of business of hiring and is entitled for claim of depreciation. Above view, according to ld JM, is supported in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal [ 2003 (1) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . He accordingly reversed the finding of CIT (Appeals) and held that assessee be allowed depreciation. He allowed ground raised by the appellant in the memo of the appeal. The ld AM was of the opinion that decision in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal was binding on the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would tantamount to use of the asset. However, even above evidence is not available in this case. The crane was delivered to transport company, Assam Roadways on 27-3-1991 and that it reached Kariakal only in the second week of April 1991 where it was collected by the assessee. Thereafter contract of hiring was entered by the assessee and crane was hired. Thus even if a wider meaning is given to expression used for purposes of business the arrangement to hand over crane, to take delivery at Kariakal in April 1991 cannot be treated as used for purposes of business on or before 31-3-1991. On facts, it cannot be taken as even kept ready for use. Therefore, on above facts, revenue authorities were fully justified in not allowing depreciation on this crane. As far as Crane Model No. Cole 825 is concerned, the same, as per claim of the assessee was used as a back-up crane for use by M/s. Light Motive, Calcutta who were making picture City of Joy . The Assessing Officer, in order to verify the claim of the assessee summoned and recorded statement of Shri A.D. Sanghvi, the Director of the assessee-company. My attention was drawn to his statement. The statement fully supports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me are answered accordingly. The matter be placed now before the regular bench for an appropriate order, in accordance with law. - Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Vimal Gandhi, As a Third Member, Mukul Shrawat, Judicial Member and K.G. Bansal, Accountant Member ORDER Per Mukul Shrawat, Judicial Member.- These three appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, for the sake of convenience the same are consolidated and hereby decided by this common order. (A) ITA No. 687/PN/94 2. This appeal has arisen out of the order of CIT(A) dated 23-3-1994 and the first ground is as follows: Ground No. 1.- (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer with respect to depreciation allowable on new cranes. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer be directed to allow depreciation hitherto denied on the new cranes. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of hiring of cranes and other equipments. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent in the name of the assessee which was agreed by the legal department of ONGC. Assessing Officer has also observed that there was no written contract between the sister concern and the assessee about this arrangement. The crane was actually used at Kariakal site from 17-4-1991. This is the main reason and the objection for disallowance of claim of depreciation because firstly, the Letter of Intent was not in favour of the assessee uptil the end of the financial year; secondly, the machinery was not put to use within the financial year. On the basis of these facts, A.O. has concluded that the said crane could not be said to be used at all actively or passively by the assessee for its business purpose during the financial year under consideration. In support of disallowance, the Assessing Officer has also made a point that the assessee was granted only the temporary registration, therefore, the said registration was not meant for commercial purposes. He has recorded that the permanent registration of the said vehicle was granted on 14-4-1991 and, thereafter, only the assessee was entitled for commercial use of the vehicle. According to Assessing Officer, the temporary registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority or valid registration for the purpose of commercial use during the financial year. After analysing certain case-laws, he has disallowed the claim of depreciation in respect of this crane as well. Being aggrieved, the issue was carried before the first appellate authority. 6. The Learned CIT(A) has also analysed the factual aspect in detail and most of the arguments and explanations were reproduced in the impugned appellate order. He has arrived at the conclusion that on the basis of the facts as well as other materials as examined by the Assessing Officer, it was evident that the said two cranes were not at all used in the business of the company in the concerned previous year. According to him, the user of the assets could not be proved by the assessee. In his opinion, even the passive user of the asset was not relevant because the assets were purchased at the fag end of the financial year and could not be put to use at all. According to him, it was the case that the machinery was being not used by the assessee but remained idle or unused due to certain reasons, therefore, could not be said to be even the passive user of the asset. By citing section 32 of the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Calcutta on 27-3-1991 for Kariakal Project at Tamil Nadu. Ld. A.R. has also drawn our attention on a letter dated 1-10-1990 issued by ONGC addressed to M/s. Sanghvi Non-Ferrous Metal Industries, the sister concern about hiring of crane for Cauvery Project. The said letter has made certain specifications about the crane and the contract was subjected to the satisfaction of the said condition. To fulfil the requirement and the specifications 'of crane, an order was placed to the manufacturer of crane namely M/s. TIL Ltd., who has confirmed to fulfil the specifications and deliver the crane 620M by the end of December 1990 and given top priority to the said order, a letter in this regard is placed on page 15 of the paper book (dated 30-11-1990). Ld. AR. has also referred few more correspondence between TIL Ltd. and assessee as well as sister concern. At this juncture, ld. A.R. has clarified that since the assessee as well as the sister concern are operating from the same premises, therefore, the manufacturer of the crane has made the correspondence sometimes in one name and sometimes in another name but in either case, it was related to the same crane and meant to be addressed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion, this crane was not used at all for the purpose of business either by the assessee or by the ONGC during the financial year. In support, he has cited the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 wherein it was held that the word used denotes that the asset has been actually used and not that it is merely ready for use. He has also cited an another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd [1998] 231 ITR 308, In support of his argument stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of investment allowance, one has to examine the actual usage of machinery by the lessee. According to the ld. D.R., if on hiring a machinery or any asset has not actually been put to use for business purposes by the lessee or the hirer, then the lessor or the hiring company should also not be entitled for claim of depreciation. 8.1 Within this narrow compass of facts and legal position and in view of the questions framed supra, we are of the considered view that the assessee has a strong case in view of the reasons assigned here-in-below. Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing year under consideration. 9. As far as the other crane Model No. Cole 825 is concerned, there is no dispute as far as the purchase and delivery of the said machine is concerned. The only dispute is that the said crane was kept as a standby crane. However, in this regard, there are several evidences placed on record, establishing the fact that the hirer of the crane has demanded for a standby crane and since the assessee has to satisfy a reasonable demand of his client, therefore, in the interest of business relations, provided one standby crane. The crane was hired by M/s. Light Motive, who was under a production of the film City of Joy . To provide uninterrupted service of crane, it was decided to provide a substitute ready to be used in the case of an eventuality, so the decision was purely in the consideration of the business prospect, hence, cannot be overlooked on the basis of some presumptions. 10. We have duly considered the case laws cited from both the sides and on careful examination, we have noticed that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Geo Tech Construction Corpn., has held that the words used for the purpose of the business were capable of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. Ground No. 2 reads as under:- Ground No. 2.- (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's allowance of depreciation on truck mounted cranes at the general rate applicable to plant machinery under clause III(1) of Appendix I instead of at the rate applicable to motor lorries under clause III(2)(ii) of Appendix I. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer be directed to allow depreciation on truck mounted cranes at the rates applicable to motor lorries as specified in clause III(2)(ii) of Appendix I. The appellant has claimed the depreciation on truck mounted crane at the special rate whereas the Assessing Officer has allowed the rate of depreciation as applicable to the plant and machinery. The assessee has explained that there were two types of cranes namely Mobile Crane and the other is Crawler Crane . It was explained that in respect of crawler crane, the depreciation at the rate of 33.33 per cent was claimed, however, in respect of mobile crane or truck mounted crane, depreciation at the rate of 50 per cent was claimed. The first appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) resultantly, the same is hereby deleted. Grounds raised in this regard are allowed. ITA No. 73/PN/97 (A.Y. 1993-94) 16. This appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dated 6-12-1996. Ground No. 1 reads as follows: Ground No. 1.- (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer with respect to depreciation allowable on new cranes. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer be directed to allow depreciation hitherto denied on the new cranes. The Assessing Officer has disallowed depreciation on two new Kato cranes. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the appellant had imported two Kato cranes during the year under consideration in connection with its contract with ONGC and claimed depreciation at the rate of 12.5 per cent on the cranes. Enquiries were conducted which reveal, as per Assessing Officer, that the cranes were purchased by the assessee on 11-1-1993 and shifted to Madras on 21-1-1993. Here it is relevant to mention that the previous year ended on 31-3-1993. It was also observed that the cran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout repeating the detailed discussions already held here-in-above, we hereby reverse the finding of the ld. CIT(A), who has simply followed the earlier order of the assessment year 1991-92, already decided in favour of assessee, resultantly, the grounds raised for the year under consideration as well are allowed. 18. Ground No. 2 of the appeal reads as under:- Ground No. 2.- (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's allowance of depreciation on truck mounted cranes at the general rate applicable to plant machinery under clause III(1) of Appendix I instead of at the rate applicable to motor lorries under clause III(2)(ii) of Appendix I. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer be directed to allow depreciation on truck mounted cranes at the rates applicable to motor lorries as specified in clause III(2)(ii) of Appendix I. The Assessing Officer has allowed depreciation on truck mounted cranes at the rate of 25 per cent being the rate applicable to plant and machinery instead of 40 per cent being the rate applicable to trucks and motor l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no reason for treating such an agreement as on of transfer for disallowing the grant of investment allowance, when the assessee complies with the other requirements of, section 32A. The ratio of the case is that when a machinery is given on hire in lieu of payment of hire charges, income of the assessee is business income and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduct investment allowance under section 32A, if other conditions of the section are satisfied. In other words, giving the machinery on hire on receipt of hire charges amounts to user of the machinery for the purpose of business of the assessee. In such a situation, the assessee will also be entitled to deduct depreciation while computing its income. However, sine qua non for grant of investment allowance or depreciation is that the contract of hire has come into existence, leading to income by way of hire charges to the assessee. However, if such contract of hire has not come into existence in the relevant previous year, the assessee will not be entitled to deduct depreciation or claim investment allowance while computing the income. The learned DR had also relied on the decision of Bombay High Court, Nagpur B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anes, as no customer could be found, should not come in a way of deduction of depreciation. The learned CIT(A) held that the assessee will be entitled to deduct depreciation only when these cranes have been actually used by way of giving them on hire. The facts, insofar as deduction of depreciation is concerned, are similar to the facts discussed in my order in ITA No. 687/PN/94 for assessment year 1991-92. The decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal is applicable with full force in respect of these cranes also, namely, that the user will start from the day the cranes are given on hire and not from the day when they were ready for giving on hire. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessee is not entitled to deduct depreciation in respect of these cranes also in this year. 4. Apart from this issue, I am in agreement with my learned brother in respect of other findings given by him. In result, ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are dismissed. REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 By virtue of the provisions contained in section 255(4) of Income-tax Act, we differ in opinion on the certain points, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d need not be repeated in detail. However, to highlight the controversy, important facts are being recapitulated in the following paragraphs. 3. The assessee-company in the period relevant to assessment years 1991-92 and 1993-94 was carrying on business of hiring of cranes and other equipments. The assessee claimed depreciation in assessment year 1991-92 on two cranes Model No. Cole 620M and Cole 825(1) having purchased them in the relevant period from M/s. TIL Ltd., Calcutta. In the course of assessment proceeding, these cranes were found to have been purchased at the fag end of the previous year and, therefore, Assessing Officer had doubt whether these were used by the assessee for purposes of business in the period ending 31-3-1991. The Assessing Officer, therefore, asked the assessee to prove that conditions of section 32 of Income-tax Act relating to claim of depreciation, were satisfied. 4. The assessee brought the following facts on record. In respect of crane Model No. Cole 620M, it was claimed that order for purchase of this crane was placed in August, 1990 and advance of Rs. 6,50,000 was paid. The seller M/s. TIL Ltd. issued sale letter on 16-3-1991 and assessee obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, did not advance the case of the assessee. As the crane did not reach the place where it was required to be used and for other reasons stated above, the assessee was held to be not entitled to depreciation. 6. The facts relating to other crane Model No. Cole 825(1) are as under: The said machinery was also purchased at the fag end from Calcutta and claimed to be kept as a standby from 22-3-1991 at the premises of M/s. Light Motive, Calcutta. As per the contract with M/s. Light Motive, the crane was hired at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per month for 26 days. The Assessing Officer refused to accept above case and observed that there was no requirement by the assessee to provide a standby crane. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee that crane 830 with M/s. Light Motive required some repairs and, therefore, in the interest of business, standby crane was arranged. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had no obligation to keep a standby crane which had costed the assessee Rs. 43 lakhs. On the basis of his enquiry, the Assessing Officer found that there was no break-down of crane No. 830 during the relevant period. In this connection, he relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted using the asset during the financial year. The learned Judicial Member found that crane Model No. Cole 620M was claimed to be put to use for purposes of hiring by the assessee-company before the assessment year which ended on 31-3-1991. He noted that an order for purchase of this crane was placed with M/s. TIL Ltd., Calcutta in the month of August 1990. The sale was executed on 16-3-1991, as per sale letter issued by TIL Ltd. Certain tests were carried out relating to satisfactory performance of the crane from 16th March to 30th March, 1991. He found that a temporary registration of the crane was obtained from the Registration Authority on 19-3-1991. The said crane was dispatched from Calcutta on 27-3-1991 for Kariakal Project, Tamil Nadu. ONGC had issued letter dated 1-10-1990 to sister concern of the assessee for hiring of crane of certain specification, for Cauvery Project. To fulfil the requirement, an order was placed with M/s. TIL Ltd. who had confirmed to supply crane of above specification by December, 1990. The learned Judicial Member also noted that there was correspondence between assessee and its sister concern to establish that both were operative from the same pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved: On examination of the material placed on record and several correspondence made by the assessee and its sister concern with ONGC, we are of the view that certain technical formalities have been completed, otherwise the ONGC has placed its order way back in October, 1990 with the specification of the crane as required at Kariakal, T.N. site. The learned Judicial Member was further of the view that in the light of evidence of ownership of machinery, supply of machinery, registration certificate, transportation of machinery from Calcutta to site, the claim of depreciation could not be denied on technical ground that Letter of Intent was replaced in the name of the assessee instead of its sister concern, would not be justified. Such a view would represent only a pedantic approach. He, therefore, observed, that though the Letter of Intent in the name of the assessee was replaced in the subsequent financial year, but the assessee has acted in a bona fide manner and accomplished all the conditions to fulfil the obligation of its sister concern of supply of the crane within the time to ONGC. He further treated as reasonable the explanation offered by sister concern for n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces and material placed on record, and the precedents cited above, we can safely arrive at a conclusion that for claiming depreciation, the emphasis is on the user of the depreciable assets in the business of the assessee. In the present case, there was an actual, effective and real user in the commercial sense, which was also linked with the hiring activity of the assessee, so a conclusion can be drawn that there was a immediate nexus between the user and the business of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we hereby hold that the assessee was entitled for the claim of depreciation in respect of both the cranes. With this finding, we hereby reverse the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) and allow this ground of the assessee. Assessment year: 1993-94 10. The learned Judicial Member noted that Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on two new Kato cranes. The Assessing Officer had found that appellant had imported two Kato cranes during the year under consideration with its contract with ONGC and claimed depreciation at the rate of 12.5 per cent of cost of the cranes. Enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer revealed that cranes were purchased by the assessee on 11-1-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed depreciation. He allowed ground raised by the appellant in the memo of the appeal. 11. The learned Accountant Member did not agree with the view expressed by the learned Judicial Member on the allowability of depreciation on cranes in the two assessment years under appeal. He held that decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. arose under provision of section 32A, which did not contain any express requirement relating to use of plant and machinery by the assessee. He further noted that transaction of hire is a transaction of bailment of machinery. He noted that as per cited decision, giving the machinery on hire on receipt of hire charges amounts to user of machinery for the purposes of business of the assessee. In such a situation, the assessee will also be entitled to deduct depreciation while computing its income, but both for grant of investment allowance or depreciation, it has to be proved that contract of hire has come into existence leading to income by way of hire charges to the assessee. However, such contract of hire has not come into existence in the relevant previous year. The assessee will not be entitled to deduct depreciation or claim i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard. Shri Inamdar, learned counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that learned Accountant Member had wrongly relied upon decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal which was distinguishable on facts as even facts of case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. were not noted. If the machinery is ready to be used, then conditions of section 32 are fully satisfied. For this purpose, he placed reliance on large number of decisions. Shri Inamdar further argued that assessee had paid entire consideration and all the four cranes were delivered to the assessee. All the four cranes were ready for use but on account of technical reasons, they could not be actually used. In connection with crane Model No. 825, he read out statement of Director Shri A.D. Sanghvi to show that crane was kept as a back-up crane for the use of M/s. Light Motive making picture City of Joy . The statement of Director clearly showed that crane was kept ready for use and, therefore, conditions of section 32 were fully satisfied. In respect of two cranes imported by the assessee in the year 1993, Shri Inamdar drew my attention to the objections filed by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess and the same can be said to be in use when it is kept ready for use. 15.2 In the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd., Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court were concerned with the question whether ginning machines remaining idle under pooling agreement could be said to be used so as to be entitled to the depreciation. Their Lordships made the following relevant observations: Now the expression use or used has several times received interpretation at the hands not only of this court and of other High Courts but by the Supreme Court itself. So far as this Court is concerned, in CIT v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe [1937] 5 ITR 21 (Bom.) in a case which was very similar to the present case, this court, with reference to the provisions of section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, said that the word used in that section should be understood in a wide sense so as to embrace passive as well as active user. They pointed out that when machinery is kept ready for use at any moment in a particular factory under an express agreement from which taxable profits are earned, the machinery can be said to be used for the purposes of the business which earned the profits, although it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of allowing depreciation and after considering relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, observed as under: In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the assessee, who had purchased the motor vehicle for valuable consideration and used the same for his business, cannot be denied the benefit of depreciation on the ground that the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicles Act or that the vehicle stood in the name of the vendor in the records of the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. 15.4 In the case of CIT v. Salkia Transport Associates [1983] 143 ITR 39 (Cal.) five buses owned by the assessee were not registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Their Lordships noted relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and on the question whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation under the above circumstances observed as under: That the assessee has purchased five new buses is not disputed. The only argument is that the vehicles were not registered in the name of the assessee under the Motor Vehicles Act. But that is one of the factors that has to be taken into consideration for deciding the question of ownership ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed even without obtaining registration or payment of road tax, etc., it cannot be said, as a matter of fact, that the vehicle has not been used. The attention of the Tribunal was not drawn towards rule 47 of the Motor Vehicles Rules which gives seven days time to apply for registration of the vehicle with the registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the oil tankers were not used on the last date of the previous year is not based on legal evidence, and has given rise to a substantial question of law involved in the appeal and, therefore, it is not correct to say that the appeal is concluded by finding of fact and is not maintainable. In view of above exposition of law the case in hand is to be examined. The two oil tankers along with mounted bodies were purchased for the business purposes by the assessee who is a transporter during the accounting year. It is not the case of the Department that these oil tankers were not necessary for the business purposes of the assessee-appellant. These oil tankers were actually plied on the road on the last date of the accounting year and were challaned and also fined by the CMM, Kanpur. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of property caused by wear or obsolescence and is usually measured by a set formula which reflects, these elements over a given period of useful life of property.... Consistent, gradual process of estimating and allocating cost of capital investments over estimated useful life of asset in order to match cost against earnings.....' ***** An overall view of the abovesaid authorities shows that the very concept of depreciation suggests that the tax benefit on account of depreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the capital asset, is utilizing the capital asset and thereby losing gradually investment caused by wear and tear, and would need to replace the same by having lost its value fully over a period of time. It is evident from abovenoted decisions that depreciation is an allowance for diminution in value due to wear and tear of a capital asset and that claim on account of depreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the capital asset. 15.8 Reference to section 32(1) as existing in all material time reveals that building, machinery and other assets mentioned in sub-section (1) when owned by the assessee and used for purposes o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on 27-3-1991 and that it reached Kariakal only in the second week of April 1991 where it was collected by the assessee. Thereafter contract of hiring was entered by the assessee and crane was hired. Thus even if a wider meaning is given to expression used for purposes of business the arrangement to hand over crane, to take delivery at Kariakal in April 1991 cannot be treated as used for purposes of business on or before 31-3-1991. On facts, it cannot be taken as even kept ready for use. Therefore, on above facts, revenue authorities were fully justified in not allowing depreciation on this crane. 17. As far as Crane Model No. Cole 825 is concerned, the same, as per claim of the assessee was used as a back-up crane for use by M/s. Light Motive, Calcutta who were making picture City of Joy . The Assessing Officer, in order to verify the claim of the assessee summoned and recorded statement of Shri A.D. Sanghvi, the Director of the assessee-company. My attention was drawn to his statement. The statement fully supports the case of the assessee that the said crane was kept ready as a back-up crane, in case crane No. 830 already with above concern, breaks down and needed repair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
