TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is separate from the vehicle which contains gas. The gas is supplied to the different parties. It has been submitted that in similar circumstances the Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench allowed 100 per cent depreciation in gas cylinder in the case of M/s Mysore Ammonia Supply Corpn. reported in ITA No. 1131/4/89. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal cases reported in South Eastern Roadways Ltd. vs. ITO (1992) 43 TTJ (Bang) 278: (1992) 40 ITD 349(Bang) and Dy. CIT vs. Sodium Metal (P) Ltd. (1996) 55 TTJ (Ahd) 643. In the case of South Eastern Roadways Ltd. vs. ITO, the Tribunal held as under: The assessee had been granted licence by the Chief Controller of Explosives to transport compressed ammonia gas in the container mounted on the vehicle. The container was nothing but a big cylinder suitable for being mounted on the chassis of the truck. It had all the attributes of a cylinder. Straingent conditions were imposed by explosives department having regard to the dangerous quality of the substance transported. It had special valves and regulators. To our mind it is clear that the container mounted on the chassis of the truck was a gas cylinder and fell within the description given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of CIT(A) was filed before us. 3.4 On the other hand, Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the authorities below and submitted that the first appellate authority has already taken a lenient view on this issue and the finding should not be disturbed. 3.5 After hearing both the sides, we find that the claim of the assessee has been substantially allowed by the CIT(A) except 2 per cent interest disallowed with regard to interest payment to Vadilal Finance Co. Ltd. at the rate of 20 per cent. It is true that first appellate authority in the case of Bollard Oil Field (P) Ltd. has allowed 20 per cent interest payment to the same finance company limited for the asst. yr. 1989-90, but the present case before us is for the asst. yr. 1988-89. Therefore, considering the circumstances of the case we are not inclined to disturb the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue for the present assessment year. 4. The next issue is disallowance of expenditure of ₹ 17,145 incurred by the assessee under s. 37(3). However, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to ₹ 10,545. 4.1 The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the cost of the arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2 We find that this issue to almost connected with the first issue, we discussed in our order. 6.3 It appears that the Revenue is also aggrieved and raised a ground in its appeal on this issue. According to the Revenue, CIT(A) should not have directed to allow depreciation on the tanker. 6.4 On perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A) we are satisfied that the assessee is entitled to depreciation because the CIT(A), after examining the findings on record, came to the finding that the tanker was put to use by the assessee during the accounting year. So far as the rate of depreciation is concerned this case is connected with the first issue. Hence, the AO shall consider the case while considering the rate of depreciation to be allowed with regard to the tankers mounted on vehicles. 7. The next issue is with regard to charging of interest under s. 217 of the Act. The CIT(A) held that this ground has become infructuous because after giving effect to the order, no interest will be chargeable. Accordingly this issue before us has become infructuous and dismissed. 8. The next ground is with regard to deduction under s. 80G of IT Act. The AO has not given any finding on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conclusion that there was no fraud, collusion and inflation on the part of the assessee to show a higher valuation for the purpose of getting higher depreciation. The addition under s. 28(iv) made by the AO was also cancelled against which the Revenue is in appeal before us. 2.2 The learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the AO and submitted that with a view to got higher depreciation, the assessee had shown the enhanced cost of the assets which should not have been considered by the CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee did not revalue the land for the simple reason that those revaluation could not fetch higher depreciation. Therefore, the AO has rightly considered the difference between the two valuation as income of the assessee under s. 28(iv) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Kangundi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 540(AP). On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the assessee heavily relied on the order passed by the CIT(A) and brought to our attention the different paragraph and finding recorded by the CIT(A). It has been submitted that according to the different clauses of the deed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
