9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment involves the consideration of two questions raised by the Revenue regarding the deletion of depreciation claim on lease vehicles and the addition of salary paid to the Director of the Company.
Deletion of Salary Addition: The Court declined to entertain the question regarding the salary paid to the Director of the Company as the amount was not substantial, had been accepted in the previous year, and lacked sufficient material in the orders of the Assessing Officer and the appellate order. Depreciation Claim on Lease Vehicles: The issue revolved around the assessee claiming depreciation at a higher rate of 40% on leased vehicles used for running on hire. The Revenue contended that since the assessee was in the business of leasing out vehicles, depreciation should only be allowed at the normal rate of 20%. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the Revenue's appeal. Precedent and Legal Interpretation: The Court referred to a previous decision by a Division Bench and highlighted the distinction between "lease" and "hire" in the context of vehicle usage for depreciation claims. It was emphasized that the user of vehicles in the business of transportation or hire was crucial for determining the applicable depreciation rate. The Court also discussed the principle of "per incuriam" in legal judgments and the importance of judicial precedents in tax matters. Decision and Disposition: Based on the precedent set by a cognate Bench, the Court reversed the Tribunal's decision regarding the depreciation claim on lease vehicles in favor of the Revenue. The appeal was disposed of accordingly at the admission stage, aligning with the previous decision on the matter. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of depreciation claim on lease vehicles and salary addition, emphasizing legal interpretations, precedents, and the application of the "per incuriam" principle in judicial decisions.
|
