2017 (10) TMI 1294 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on dumpers and tippers - @ 30% OR @15% - Held that - Clauses (a) and (b) in the second proviso make it clear that exclusion from the provision is only in respect of the machinery or plant or appliances connected with the administrative part of the business, i.e., those used in the office premises or residential accommodation of the assessee. Naturally, road transport vehicles referred to therein will have to be such vehicles which are made to carry the employees to the office and back home. The words road transport vehicles include vehicles like omnibuses, cars, etc., and not dumpers and tippers which are directly used in the activity of the business, at the place where the business is actually carried on. Dumpers and tippers are essentially machinery used to carry on a construction work. The use of dumpers and tippers for the purpose of business of construction, i.e., used to lift earth and transport the same, results in the production of an article or thing and such machinery is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. The issue before us has been answered by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka (1991 (3) TMI 36 - KARNATAKA High Court) so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing depreciation @ 30% on dumper and tipper. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
- Dispute over depreciation rate on dumpers and tippers.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to a disagreement regarding the depreciation rate applicable to dumpers and tippers for the assessment year 2010-11. The primary issue revolves around the discrepancy between the depreciation rate claimed by the assessee at 30% and the rate allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) at 15%. The Revenue Authority disallowed the excess depreciation based on previous years' assessments. The assessee, in response, appealed to the Ld. CIT(A), who directed the AO to permit depreciation at 30% by citing judgments from the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The revenue, dissatisfied with this decision, has now appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the matter is settled in favor of the assessee by a decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahaling Setty & Co. The High Court ruling emphasized that machinery used in the business of construction, such as dumpers and tippers, qualifies for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court's decision clarified that the term "thing" in the context of investment allowance encompasses incorporeal assets, expanding the scope beyond movable property. It highlighted that the purpose of business includes all activities essential for business operations, not just the final touches. The judgment emphasized that machinery integral to construction activities, like dumpers and tippers, are eligible for investment allowance as they contribute to the production of an article or thing. The Court differentiated between machinery directly involved in business activities and those related to administrative functions, affirming that dumpers and tippers used in construction work are eligible for investment allowance under section 32A. The Tribunal concurred with the High Court's interpretation and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 30% on dumpers and tippers. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, affirming the allowance of higher depreciation rate for the assessee.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the eligibility of machinery, specifically dumpers and tippers, for investment allowance under section 32A when used in construction activities. The decision aligns with the broader interpretation of the term "business purpose" and clarifies that machinery directly involved in production processes qualifies for higher depreciation rates. The ruling provides a legal precedent for similar cases involving depreciation rates on assets utilized in essential business operations, emphasizing the importance of contextual interpretation of statutory provisions in tax matters.