9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rejection of the assessee's claim for development rebate on new cars and lorries. 2. Correctness of allowing depreciation at the rate of 20 per cent. Analysis: The judgment addressed two primary issues. Firstly, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim for development rebate on new cars and lorries. The Income-tax Officer initially denied the rebate without substantial reasoning, leading to an appeal process. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the denial, stating that hiring out vehicles does not constitute installing plant or machinery. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that hiring out vehicles can be a legitimate business activity falling under section 10 for income computation. The Court cited a previous case where the replacement of vehicles qualified for development rebate, establishing a precedent. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the development rebate claim. Secondly, the correctness of allowing depreciation at a rate of 20 per cent was questioned. The assessee argued that the vehicles should be considered taxis eligible for a 25 per cent depreciation rate. However, the Court found this argument untenable as the vehicles were hired out to a single customer exclusively, not meeting the criteria of a taxi. Additionally, the vehicles were not registered as motor-taxis, further distinguishing them. Therefore, the Court upheld the lower depreciation rate of 20 per cent, ruling against the assessee on this issue. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment favored the assessee regarding the development rebate claim but ruled against them concerning the depreciation rate. The Court clarified the distinction between business activities falling under section 10 and income from other sources under section 12, emphasizing the eligibility criteria for development rebate and depreciation allowances. Consequently, no costs were awarded in the case.
|
