2006 (7) TMI 125 - HC - Income Tax

Distinction between hire and lease of vehicles depreciation - In respect of leased vehicles, the assessee claimed depreciation at 40 per cent, in terms of section 32 r.w.r. 5 of the Income-tax Rules and Appendix I to the Rules - AO allowed depreciation at 20 per cent, while holding that the assessee had given the vehicles on lease to third parties, which is not the same as running them on hire by the assessee. - whether the assessee has utilised the vehicles for its own use, and if not whether the assessee would be entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent. - There is no additional requirement on the assessee to show that the third parties had used those vehicles for hire. - it is clear that it is the end user of the specified asset which is relevant for determining the percentage of depreciation - Once it is accepted that the leasing out of the vehicles is one of the modes of doing business by the assessee and in fact the income derived from such leasing is treated as business income of the assessee, it would be clearly contradictory in terms to hold that the vehicles in question were not used wholly for the purpose of the assessee s business higher rate of depreciation is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over depreciation rate for vehicles leased out by a non-banking finance company.
2. Interpretation of provisions under section 32 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Comparison of judgments by different High Courts on similar cases.
4. Determining entitlement to higher depreciation rate based on vehicle usage.
5. Clarification on the distinction between hire and lease of vehicles.

Issue 1: Dispute over Depreciation Rate:
The case involved a dispute regarding the depreciation rate applicable to vehicles leased out by a non-banking finance company. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation at 20%, while the assessee claimed 40% depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the 20% rate, stating that the assessee was not entitled to higher depreciation as it leased vehicles to third parties, not ran them on hire. However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention, granting 40% depreciation based on previous decisions and the Gauhati High Court's ruling. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the assessee was not entitled to 40% depreciation as the leased vehicles were not used for hire.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 32 Provisions:
The court analyzed the interpretation of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the assessee's entitlement to higher depreciation rests on whether the vehicles were utilized for its business of hiring or leasing to third parties. The court highlighted the requirement that the assessee must use the vehicles for hire or leasing to claim a higher depreciation rate and not for personal use. The judgment referenced previous rulings and clarified that the assessee's ownership and leasing of vehicles met the legal requirements, dismissing the Revenue's contention.

Issue 3: High Court Judgments Comparison:
The court compared judgments from different High Courts on similar cases to support its decision. It referenced the Gauhati High Court's ruling followed in a previous case and distinguished it from judgments cited by the Revenue. The court noted that the cases relied upon by the Revenue involved different factual circumstances where the vehicles were used for the assessee's own products, unlike the present case where vehicles were leased out to third parties.

Issue 4: Determining Entitlement to Higher Depreciation:
The court addressed the practicality of the Revenue's argument, highlighting the burden it would impose on the assessee to track third parties' use of leased vehicles. It emphasized that the assessee's entitlement to higher depreciation is based on actual usage for hiring or leasing, not on monitoring lessees' activities. The court concluded that the assessee met the legal requirements by leasing vehicles to third parties, and there was no need to prove lessees' use for hire to claim 40% depreciation.

Issue 5: Distinction Between Hire and Lease of Vehicles:
The court clarified the distinction between hire and lease of vehicles, citing a previous judgment. It emphasized that leasing vehicles is equivalent to hiring them and that the end user's business purpose determines the depreciation rate. The court rejected the Revenue's argument by stating that the assessee's leasing of vehicles for business purposes fulfilled the legal conditions for claiming higher depreciation.

In conclusion, the court answered the question of law in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the legal requirements for claiming higher depreciation rates and dismissing the Revenue's contentions. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and practical considerations in determining the depreciation rate for leased vehicles.