2014 (1) TMI 744 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on depreciation rates, transport expenses, and liabilities

Asstt. CIT Versus M/s Sayeed Iqbal

Asstt. CIT Versus M/s Sayeed Iqbal - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deleting the disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on tippers, road rollers, and JCB.2. Deleting the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS on transport expenses.3. Deleting the addition on account of remission or cessation of liabilities under Section 41(1).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deleting the disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on tippers, road rollers, and JCB:The assessee firm, deriving income from contract receipts and hiring of JCB/Dumpers/road rollers, claimed depreciation at higher rates on these assets for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed lower depreciation rates, treating these assets as 'Plant and Machinery' instead of 'Motor Vehicles.' The CIT (A) allowed the higher depreciation rates, considering these assets as motor vehicles used for hiring purposes, thus eligible for higher depreciation. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing various judicial pronouncements, including the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in CIT vs. A.M. Construction, which supported higher depreciation rates for tippers used for hiring purposes.2. Deleting the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS on transport expenses:The AO disallowed transport expenses for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C, citing Section 40(a)(ia). The assessee argued that payments were made for the purchase of construction materials, including transportation costs, and not for transport services alone. The CIT (A) agreed, noting that the payments were for material supply, which included transportation costs, thus not attracting TDS provisions under Section 194C. The Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Birla Cement Works v CBDT, which clarified that mere transportation of goods does not constitute 'carrying out any work' under Section 194C.3. Deleting the addition on account of remission or cessation of liabilities under Section 41(1):The AO treated certain sundry creditors as ceased liabilities and added them as income under Section 41(1), due to lack of evidence of payment. The assessee contended that these liabilities were paid off during the year, and no remission or cessation occurred. The CIT (A) found that the AO had not provided evidence of cessation or remission and that the liabilities were indeed paid. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that since the liabilities were paid and not written back, Section 41(1) was not applicable.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years, affirming the CIT (A)'s decisions on all issues. The order was pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2011.