9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 46 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement to higher claim of depreciation on the Uppers, dumpers, trailers used in his business used for transportation business - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case 2017 (12) TMI 1478 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM Transportation business carried out by the assessee by using Trailers, Dumpers & Motor Lorries is not an incidental to the business of the assessee. Out of the gross receipts of ₹ 55,75,16,582/-, the assessee received ₹ 22,99,64,332/-. The ld. Departmental Representative failed to produce any material to show that the above finding given by the ld. CIT(A) is not correct. Therefore, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for higher depreciation rate on motor lorries, dumpers, and trailers. 2. Determination of whether transportation activities are incidental or substantial to the assessee's business. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Higher Depreciation Rate: The core issue is whether the assessee is entitled to a higher depreciation rate of 30% on motor lorries, dumpers, and trailers used in its business. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the higher depreciation claim, stating that the vehicles were not used exclusively for hire, as required under Part-III(3)(ii) of the table of rates prescribed under Rule 5 of the IT Rules, 1962. The AO contended that the primary activity of the assessee was providing services related to Customs House Agent (CHA), stevedoring, and Clearing & Forwarding (C&F), and that transportation was only an integral part of these services, not a separate business activity. 2. Determination of Transportation Activities: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disagreed with the AO, noting that the transportation activities were substantial and separately identifiable. The CIT(A) highlighted that the assessee's business included significant transportation activities, as evidenced by the revenue generated from transportation contracts. The CIT(A) also pointed out that the vehicles were used for transportation services billed separately and not merely as part of the C&F activities. The CIT(A) referenced the assessee's turnover, showing substantial income from transportation, supporting the claim that transportation was a significant part of the business. Judicial Precedents and CBDT Circular: The CIT(A) referred to several judicial precedents and a CBDT Circular No. 652 dated 14.06.1993, which supported the claim for higher depreciation. The Gauhati High Court in ABC India Ltd. vs. CIT and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. AM Constructions held that vehicles used in transportation of goods on hire are entitled to higher depreciation. The Bombay High Court in CIT vs. SC Thakur and Bros also supported this view, stating that higher depreciation is admissible when motor lorries are used in the business of transportation of goods on hire. Tribunal’s Decision: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's transportation activities were substantial and not merely incidental to its C&F business. The ITAT noted that in the assessee's case for the Assessment Year 2011-12, a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee, confirming the eligibility for higher depreciation. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which was based on a detailed analysis of the business receipts and judicial precedents. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the assessee is entitled to a higher depreciation rate of 30% on motor lorries, dumpers, and trailers used in its transportation business. The decision was based on the substantial nature of the transportation activities, supported by judicial precedents and the CBDT Circular, which clarified the conditions for higher depreciation eligibility. Order Pronouncement: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on April 25, 2018.
|
