9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the truck can be separated for the purposes of depreciation, qua the truck and can it be equated with LPG cylinders for having a claim of depreciation @ 100% on such tanker? B) Whether in law there can be a segregation of the parts of the truck for the purpose of claiming depreciation at the different rates on different parts? C) Whether tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was eligible for depreciation at a rate of 40% on leased vehicles instead of normal rate of 30% even though the assessee was not carrying on the business of running them on hire? D) Whether the order passed by ITAT is perverse in not appreciating (i) the real nature and character of the business of the assessee; (ii) that the assessee was carrying on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee himself was not in the business of hiring. These trucks were leased out to Indian Oil Corporation for their business purpose. 5. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the said finding relying upon their earlier decisions in the case of Oriental Leasing Co. and N.G.T. Leasing and Finance Ltd. The question of law is covered by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Delhi). In the said case the assesses had given the vehicles on lease to several persons who used them for actually running them on hire. It was held that the assessees were entitled to higher rate of depreciation. The Court rejected the contention that it was the business of the assesses which determined the rate of depreciation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee also pointed out a large number of cases, accepted and unchallenged by the Revenue, wherein the lessor has been held as the owner of an asset in a lease agreement. [Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. A.M. Constructions; Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd.; Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd.; Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point. There was some controversy regarding the invoices issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em on hire. Prima facie there appears to be some merit in the said contention, but we are not inclined to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer. We do not think that the appellant is entitled to raise this contention at this stage as the Assessing Officer himself did not go into the said question and examine the same. The Assessing Officer and the appellate authorities have not dealt with or gone into the question or observed that the lessees had not used the vehicles for hiring. That apart, we have quoted above the observations of the Supreme Court in I.C.D.S. Ltd. (supra) and the Delhi High Court in Bansal Credit (supra) wherein on identical factual matrix the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. 8. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
