9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 466 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on tippers, vibrators, vibrator soil compactor - 40 per cent or 15 per cent - whether assessee is eligible to additional depreciation? - Held that - The assessee is entitled to claim depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent on commercial vehicles which includes within its ambit all vehicles which fall in the category of commercial vehicles. The CIT (A) has given detailed justification for treating the tipper, vibrator and vibrator soil compactor as commercial vehicles.See Hindustan Construction Co. v. ITO 1988 (9) TMI 69 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A , CIT v. A. M. Constructions 1998 (8) TMI 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court and Shiv Constructions Co. v. CIT 1986 (3) TMI 18 - GUJARAT High Court . Thus CIT(A) has rightly directed AO to allow depreciation at 40 per cent on tippers, vibrator and vibrator soil compactor. Additional depreciation - As assessee fairly conceded that the assessee had never pressed any claim towards additional depreciation either before the AO or CIT(A) therefore the observations of the CIT(A) that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation need to be vacated. Therefore vacate the observations made by CIT(A) that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation on the aforesaid items. Expenses to the extent of 60 per cent disallowed on account of repair and maintenance of machinery - bills of expenses were on the small loose slips not on the regular bills - Held that - As AO had not provided sufficient time to contest this addition & further the appellant submitted that the appellant gave all the information related to these expenses CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition to the extent of 60 per cent.
Issues involved:
1. Disputed depreciation rate on specific items for assessment year 2006-07. 2. Claim for additional depreciation on specific items for assessment year 2006-07. 3. Disputed depreciation rate on specific items for assessment year 2007-08. 4. Claim for additional depreciation on specific items for assessment year 2007-08. 5. Disputed expenses disallowed for repair and maintenance of machinery. Issue 1: Disputed depreciation rate on specific items for assessment year 2006-07: - The Department challenged the depreciation rate allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for tippers, vibrators, and vibrator soil compactor. - The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation at 15%, contrary to the assessee's claim of 40%. - The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation at 40%, justifying it based on the functional tests and previous court decisions. - The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, considering the items as commercial vehicles, entitling them to 40% depreciation. - The Tribunal vacated the observation on additional depreciation as the assessee had not claimed it earlier. Issue 2: Claim for additional depreciation on specific items for assessment year 2006-07: - The Department contested the eligibility of the assessee for additional depreciation. - The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not pressed any claim for additional depreciation previously. - Consequently, the Tribunal vacated the Commissioner's observation on the assessee's entitlement to additional depreciation. Issue 3: Disputed depreciation rate on specific items for assessment year 2007-08: - The Department raised a similar challenge for the assessment year 2007-08 regarding the depreciation rate on tippers, vibrators, and vibrator soil compactor. - The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's decision to allow depreciation at 40% for these items but vacated the direction on additional depreciation. Issue 4: Claim for additional depreciation on specific items for assessment year 2007-08: - The Department's appeal for the assessment year 2007-08 mirrored the issues in the previous year. - The Tribunal upheld the depreciation rate of 40% but rejected the claim for additional depreciation, aligning with the decision for the assessment year 2006-07. Issue 5: Disputed expenses disallowed for repair and maintenance of machinery: - The Department challenged the allowance of 60% of the disallowed repair and maintenance expenses by the Commissioner. - The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, stating that the expenses were justified for proper maintenance, leading to the partial allowance of the expenses. Conclusion: - The Tribunal partly allowed the Department's appeals for both assessment years while dismissing the memo of cross-objections filed by the assessee. - The disputes primarily revolved around the depreciation rates for specific items and the allowance of additional depreciation, with the Tribunal providing detailed reasoning for its decisions based on legal precedents and factual justifications.
|
