9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the fact that he had not purchased the car during the period envisaged for accelerated depreciation under exhibit P10 notification. In the writ petition, the notification is impugned on the ground that, in differentiating between those assessees who had acquired commercial vehicles during the period from April 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009, and those who had purchased motor vehicles between October 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010, the notification had virtually differentiated between assessees who were similarly situated, for the purposes of assessment during the assessment year 2010- 11. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that by effecting a classification between assessees in a particular financial year, which classification did not have any rational basis that had any nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation, the fundamental right of the petitioner, against discriminatory treatment, under article 14 of the Constitution of India had been infringed. The petitioner also impugns the notification on the ground that the amendment to the Rules, that had the effect of granting the benefit of enhanced depreciation in the middle of a financial year to only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution of India. 3. I have heard Sri K. P. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri P. K. R. Menon, the learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that the challenge in the writ petition is against exhibit P10 notification that had the effect of amending the Income-tax Rules, 1962, to provide for an enhanced rate of depreciation of 50 per cent., as against the regular rate of depreciation of 15 per cent. applicable to commercial vehicles, for such vehicles as were purchased and put to use between April 1, 2009, and September 30, 2009, in the financial year 2009-10, relevant to assessment year 2010-11. The contention of the petitioner is that by limiting the benefit of accelerated depreciation to such vehicles as were purchased and put to use between April 1, 2009, and September 30, 2009, those assessees who had purchased similar vehicles and put them to use between October 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010, in the same financial year, were discriminated against and, hence, the petitioner, who belonge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a classification of persons effected by a legislation for the purposes of attaining specific ends has necessarily to pass the test of permissible classification under article 14 of the Constitution of India in that it cannot be arbitrary, artificial or evasive but must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Legislature, cannot be disputed. The issue involved in the instant case, however, is whether it can be said that there was any discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner through an amendment to the Income-tax Rules pursuant to exhibit P10 notification. As already noted, the petitioner, like any other assessee similarly placed, was entitled to claim depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. in respect of the vehicle that he had purchased and put to use during the relevant financial year. Exhibit P10 notification as well as exhibit P9 notification that preceded it, were measures that were introduced by way of amendment to the Income-tax Rules to cater to a particular situation that existed in the country and affected its economy. Exhibit R2(A), exhibit R2(B) and exhibit R2(C) doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC) and P. M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1989 SC 100) Going by the principles laid down with regard to classification under fiscal statutes in the decisions noted above, I am of the view that exhibit P10 notification to the extent it confines the benefit of enhanced/accelerated depreciation for the year 2009-10 to only such commercial vehicles as have been purchased and put to use during the period from April 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009, cannot be viewed as discriminatory and, therefore, violative of the rights of the petitioner under article 14 of the Constitution of India. I must now deal with the contention of the petitioner with regard to the concept of depreciation as an allowance that is granted in respect of a unit of assessment and, therefore, necessarily an allowance that must be applied for the whole year and not only for a part of the year. The petitioner is no doubt right in contending that as a concept, depreciation is meant to replace the value of an asset to the extent it has depreciated during the period of accounting relevant to the assessment year. The instant case is not one where the petitioner, as an assessee, has been denied the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
