TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGH COURT] find that assessee s income from hiring constitutes more than 2/3rd of its total income therefore since the assessee s substantial income is from hiring business, relying on the ratio laid (supra), the assessee s claim for higher depreciation should be allowed @ 30% instead of 15% allowed by the AO. Therefore, the assessee s claim of allowing higher depreciation @ 30% is directed to be allowed. - I.T.A. No. 279/Gau/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-12-2020 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM For the Appellant : Shri Sanjoy Modi, AR For the Respondent : Shri Subra Jyoti Bhattacharya DR ORDER This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- Shillong dated 04.04.2019 for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The sole i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied with. The AO observed that in FY 2014-15, assessee filed its service tax return, but the same was not filed in this year. The AO concluded that entire receipt of ₹ 1,28,73,808/- could not be treated as an account of hiring charge. Allowable depreciation was taken @ 15%. Depreciation was restricted to be ₹ 40,83,079/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the claim of the assessee by holding as under: 5.3. I have carefully considered the matter. As stated by the AO, the Audit report of assessee stated that assessee s nature of business was contractors . In the P L A/c as on 31.03.2016, the receipt side had the narration By Bill received during this year including Hiring Charges. The books of accounts were not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,728/- from M/s Dhar Construction and balance ₹ 4,94,527/- from the parties named which is reflected in the ledger account. It was also brought to my notice that ₹ 27,52,331/- was obtained by the assessee firm from letting out vehicle and lorries on daily basis. It was brought to my notice that TDS was also deducted by the two main parties. According to Ld. AR, Shri Sanjoy Modi, the AO did not obtain any confirmation from the parties rather he issued notice to another Govt. Department u/s 133(6) of the Act. It was brought to my notice that the assessee has submitted the bank statement, copy of bills, ledger account and 26AS in support of its claim of higher depreciation claim @ 30%. It was brought to my notice due to typographic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim and revenue preferred an appeal against it before the Hon ble High Court, and Hon ble High Court took note of the fact that assessee s hiring income was more than 2/3rd (more than 65%) of its total income, therefore the Hon ble High Court upheld the action of the Tribunal in allowing the higher depreciation claim for the plant and machinery used for hiring business. So, the Ld. A.R s plea is that applying the ratio of this case law of Bansiwala Iron Steel (supra), assessee s claim for higher depreciation should be allowed. 7. Per contra, the Ld. D.R Shri Subra Jyoti Bhattacharya opposed the submission of Ld. A.R and supported the action of AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) and contended that the assessee failed to demonstrate before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
