9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a third party for consideration. The Tribunal had rightly determined the depreciation under clause 3(ii). Dismissing the appeal. - 167 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2009 - J.S. KHEHAR and UMA NATH SINGH JJ. Ms. Naveender P.K. Singh for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by J. S. Khehar J.-The respondent-assessee submitted a return for the assessment year 1998-99 wherein it declared its income at Rs. 5,67,478. It would be pertinent to mention that the respondent-assessee is a private limited company deriving its income primarily from leasing out lorries and buses to interested third parties. In the return submitted by the respondent-assessee, it claimed depreciation on the trucks/buses at the rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke additions were also made. 4. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated December 29, 2005, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bathinda accepted the afore-said appeal vide an order dated October 15, 2007. The said appellate authority arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-assessee had rightfully claimed depreciation on his trucks and buses at the rate of 40 per cent. 5. The Revenue preferred an appeal against the order dated October 15, 2007, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bathinda before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide an order dated July 2, 2008. Throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under clause (3)(ii) referred to hereinabove, is in cases where the assessee leases out the vehicle(s) as a matter of his business activity, for consideration. It is also the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that only such cases where an assessee is not entitled to lease charges/rent clause (2) relied upon by the appellate authorities would be relevant. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that in the case of the respondent-assessee, it does not "lease" out its vehicle(s) as a matter of business activity, but "hires" them out for consideration. In order to distinguish the term "lease" from the term "hire", learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the meaning of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e., in a situation where the vehicle is not handed over to a third party for use in return for charges, whereas, clause (3)(ii) relates to the user of a vehicle by a third party for consideration. It is, therefore, not possible for us, firstly, to accept that the issue of depreciation of a vehicle which is hired by its owner can be adjudicated under clause (2) as is the case of the Revenue. We are satisfied that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that the rightfully applicable clause for determining depreciation is clause (3)(ii) referred to hereinabove. We find the explanation tendered at the hands of the Revenue to distinguish the term "h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
