TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 1,26,000/made by the Assessing Officer on account of salary paid to Shri Mahendra Batti, director of the assessee? 2. Insofar as question (B) is concerned, same pertains to salary paid to the Director of the Company. From the documents on record, we gather that amount is not very large. Further in previous year, such amount was accepted as deductable. Nothing on record to suggest that such issue was carried in appeal. Even otherwise there is insufficient material on record in order of Assessing Officer and the appellate order also. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this question. 3. With respect to question (A), it appears that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hirer to use the vehicle for a temporary period the vehicle so hired. In the case of hire, the hirer has an option to buy the equipment which is one of the main distinguishing features between the words hire and lease . Before the Court, it has been argued on behalf of the assessee that for the purpose of the above entry, the word hire and the word lease should be read as equivalent. The Court held that the entry, read as a whole, states that the assessee must run the vehicle on hire or that the assessee must carry on the business of running the vehicles on hire. In the facts of the said case the Court noted that the assessee was a leasing and financing company. Its income was from lease rent, bill discounting and service charges, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the vehicles in question in its business of transportation or that the assessee is engaged in the business of hire. In the circumstances, the basic requirement for being entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 50 per cent under Entry No.III(2)(ii) of AppendixI to the Rules is not satisfied by the appellant. In other words, appellant does not pass the test for the applicability of Entry No.III(2)(ii) of AppendixI appended to the Rules, viz., the user of the vehicles in the business of the assessee of transportation or the business of hire. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the appellant is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 33.33 per cent and not at the rate of 50 per cent as claimed by it. 5. Thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying on several decisions on the issue of per incuriam, observed as under : A prior decision of this court on identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points of law in a latter case. This is not an exceptional case by inadvertence or oversight of any judgment or statutory provisions running counter to the reason and result reached. Unless it is a glaring case of obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to depend on the principle of judgment per incuriam. It is also not shown that some part of the decision based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, hence the principle of per incuriam cannot be applied. 13.3 In the present case, it is not pointed out how the decision in case of Bhagwati Appliance (supra), ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
