TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, Hon. Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CA. For the Department : Shri V. Vinod Kumar-Sr. DR. ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune, dated 10/07/2018. 2. The only issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the crawler cranes/trailers are in the nature of Plant Machinery and thus eligible for depreciation @15% and not eligible for higher depreciation of 30%. 3. At the outset, ld.AR submitted before the Bench that the issue raised by the Revenue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Cranes and Dozers are part of such transport vehicles, in respect of which depreciation is claimed @ 30%. The ld. AO/Hon‟ble CIT(A) have held crawler cranes / dozers to be plant machinery entitled for depreciation @ 15% and not motor vehicles entitled for depreciation @ 40%. 7. So far as nature of assets is concerned we found that a crawler crane is a crane having a power plant like a motor vehicle which runs mostly on a diesel engine which sufficient power / torgue and other features of a motor vehicle like cooling systems, starter, radiator, throttle with sufficient fuel tank capacity. Normally, the crawler crane has hydraulic system, boom hoisting system, load hoist system, swing system, enclosed or open cab with lower s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. (copy of relevant page of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is enclosed at pg no. 90 90 of paper book so filed before us). Registration of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is not the requirement for claiming higher depreciation. Appendix I of IT Rules or Section 32 of the I.T.Act 1961 does not mandate that a vehicle should be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming higher depreciation. 10. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 350 ITR 0527 (SC) (2013) has held that depreciation u/s.32 could not be denied for the reason that vehicle was not registered in the name of the assessee under the Motor Vehicle Act. Similar view is taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of paper book. A certificate from Govt. Approved RTO consultant, M/s.Sama Auto Consultant explaining the nature of tax paid appears at pg. No. 19 of paper book. It is thus the case that under the Bombay Vehicle Tax Act, 1958, the crawler cranes owned by the appellant are recognised as heavy motor vehicles. 13. The ld. AO in the Asstt. Order has further discussed the type of work carried out by cranes and arrived at the conclusion that cranes unless registered under the Motor Vehicle Act could not be termed as Motor Lorry entitled for depreciation @ 30%. In the said regards, we observe that it is not possible to include each and every type of vehicle in the depreciation schedule. Due to rapid industrialization, the various types of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .01.2001. (iv) DCIT Vs. Mitesh L. Shethia, ITA No. 2638/Mum/1999, Hon. Members SMC-IV Bench ITAT, Mumbai dated 14.02.2001 (The issue of crawler crane is covered here). (v) Crown Hiring Vs. ITO, ITA No. 3799/Bom/1991, Hon. Members, C Bench ITAT, Mumbai dated 09.02.1998. (vi) Gujco Carriers Vs. CIT, 256 ITR 0050 Gujarat (2002) (vii) Sanco Trans Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 61 ITD 0317 Madras (1997) (That crawler crane is a vehicle and not plant machinery is decided). (viii) CIT Vs. Galord Constructions, 190 Taxman 0406 (Kerala)(2010) (ix) Sanghvi Movers (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 110 ITD 001 (Pune) (2008) (x) FIS Logistic P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 61 SOT 24 (Kolkata) (2014) (xi) Ansari Holding Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 12 SOT 0438 (Hyderabad)(2007). (xii) John ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
