9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1491 - AT - Income TaxAllowability of higher rate of depreciation amounting claimed on Dumper and Payloader - Held that - We find that the Learned DR did not refute the findings given by the Learned CITA with regard to the nature of business carried on by the assessee and income disclosed thereon. It is seen that the assessee has disclosed income from transportation by dumpers and pay loaders in its profit and loss account and therefore we hold that the assessee is using these vehicles for transportation of goods of other persons. It is pertinent to note that CBDT Circular No. 652 dated 14.6.1993 on this subject states that assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation when the vehicles are used by the assessee in his own business of transportation of goods on hire. Thus We find that the Learned DR did not refute the findings given by the Learned CITA with regard to the nature of business carried on by the assessee and income disclosed thereon. It is seen that the assessee has disclosed income from transportation by dumpers and pay loaders in its profit and loss account and therefore we hold that the assessee is using these vehicles for transportation of goods of other persons. It is pertinent to note that CBDT Circular No. 652 dated 14.6.1993 on this subject states that assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation when the vehicles are used by the assessee in his own business of transportation of goods on hire.- Decided in favour of assessee Addition in respect of trade creditor - Held that - We find that the Learned DR did not refute the findings given by the Learned CITA with regard to the fact that the assessee had fully discharged its onus by giving the name and address of the Sundry Trade Creditor M/s Bijay Hardware Stores before the Learned AO. We find that the provisions of section 68 of the Act could not be invoked for the trade creditoRs.We hold that the assessee had duly discharged its onus by placing all the details of the sundry creditor before the Learned AO and just because no reply has been furnished by the said creditor to the Learned AO u/s 133(6) of the Act, that cannot automatically lead to a situation that the said creditor is not having any creditworthiness. We also find that the Learned AO had not disputed the genuinity of the purchases, sales and trading results of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition made towards excess payment of dumper and payloader charges and excess expenditure incurred on general account - Held that - We find that the entire addition has been made only on an estimated basis and the provisions of section 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act could not be invoked without bringing any comparative data for ascertaining the fair market value of goods and charges. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Learned CIT A on this ground.- Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of machinery hire charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Allowability of higher rate of depreciation on Dumper and Payloader. 3. Addition of trade creditor balance as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. 4. Disallowance of excess payment of dumper and payloader charges and other expenses under Section 40A(2)(b). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Machinery Hire Charges under Section 40(a)(ia): The core issue in the cross objection was whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of machinery hire charges amounting to Rs. 15,68,000 paid to L & T Finance Ltd due to non-deduction of tax at source. The assessee argued that the entire sums were paid before the end of the previous year and invoked the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), asserting its retrospective application. The Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs Ansal Land Mark Township P Ltd was cited, which held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective. The tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for verification of whether the payee had shown the payment as income and paid taxes. The cross objection was allowed for statistical purposes. 2. Allowability of Higher Rate of Depreciation on Dumper and Payloader: The revenue's appeal contested the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a higher depreciation rate of 30% on Dumper and Payloader, arguing that the assessee used these vehicles in its own business rather than hiring them out. The CIT(A) found that the assessee used the vehicles for transporting goods of other persons, which qualifies for higher depreciation. The tribunal upheld this view, referencing CBDT Circular No. 652 and a precedent from the coordinate bench in JCIT vs Avinash Transport, confirming that using vehicles for transporting goods of others entitles the assessee to higher depreciation. The revenue's ground was dismissed. 3. Addition of Trade Creditor Balance as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68: The AO added the closing balance of Rs. 7,96,400 as unexplained cash credit due to non-receipt of a response from the creditor, M/s Bijay Hardware Stores, to a Section 133(6) notice. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the AO did not doubt the purchases' genuineness and that Section 68 does not apply to trade creditors. The tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the assessee had provided all necessary details and the AO had not disputed the purchases. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Pancham Dass Jain was cited, which supports the non-applicability of Section 68 to trade creditors. The revenue's ground was dismissed. 4. Disallowance of Excess Payment of Dumper and Payloader Charges and Other Expenses under Section 40A(2)(b): The AO disallowed Rs. 13,37,234 towards excess payment to a related party and Rs. 1,00,000 on an ad hoc basis due to significant increases in expenses. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, stating that the AO had not compared the payments to fair market value or demonstrated how they were excessive. The tribunal upheld this, noting that the AO's additions were based on estimates without comparative data, thus Section 40A(2)(b) could not be invoked. The revenue's ground was dismissed. Conclusion: The cross objection of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed in its entirety. The tribunal's decision emphasized the necessity of factual verification, adherence to legal provisions, and the importance of comparative data in disallowance cases.
|
