2018 (5) TMI 1172 - HC - Income Tax

Higher rate of depreciation on dumpers - @ 30% OR 15% - nature of business of the assessee as transporter - Tribunal confirming the findings of the CIT A that the assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation @ 30% - Held that - From the material available on record though the assessee essentially was awarded contract for providing specialized equipments and trained manpower for mining and transportation of excavated minerals on hire the terms of the tender and the eventual contract awarded would suggest that the assessee was given the work of mining. The assessee was essentially required to provide equipments and manpower on hire. In view of such discussion we find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal. Even if the assessee had used such equipments and manpower for its direct mining operations for the contract if it was so awarded we wonder whether that would make any difference particularly in view of CBDT Circulars No. 609 and 652 and the decision in case of I.C.D.S Limited v. Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. 2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT . However when this issue does not arise for direct consideration we need not conclude the same. No error in the view taken by the Tribunal - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Higher rate of depreciation claim on dumpers by the assessee.
2. Whether the assessee was entitled to higher rate of depreciation on dumpers used in the business of running them on hire.
3. Interpretation of the nature of business of the assessee by the Tribunal.
4. Validity of the claim for higher depreciation by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from a common background, with different assesses involved. The primary issue was the claim of higher depreciation by the assessee on dumpers used in their business. The Revenue challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning the nature of the assessee's business as a transporter and the entitlement to a higher rate of depreciation.

2. The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm, engaged in providing earth moving equipments on hire and undertaking mining contracts. The assessee claimed higher depreciation on dumpers used in their hire business. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, stating the assessee was not in the business of running motor lorries on hire. The CIT [A] and the Tribunal, however, accepted the assessee's contention based on tender terms and CBDT Circulars, allowing the higher depreciation rate.

3. Section 32 [1] of the Income-tax Act provides for depreciation on tangible assets used for business purposes. The Tribunal's interpretation of the assessee's business as providing equipments on hire was upheld. The terms of the tender required the assessee to provide machinery for hire for various mining-related activities, supporting the claim for higher depreciation.

4. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the terms of the tender and the nature of the contract awarded to the assessee. The Tribunal's view aligned with the CBDT Circulars and previous court decisions. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's interpretation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating no question of law arose.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming the assessee's entitlement to a higher rate of depreciation on dumpers used in their business of providing equipments on hire. The judgment emphasized the importance of tender terms and contractual obligations in determining the nature of business activities for depreciation claims.