Functional similarity of crawler cranes and trailers supports higher depreciation as motor vehicles despite absence of permanent registration.

Crawler cranes and trailers were treated as functionally similar to mechanically propelled vehicles for depreciation purposes, because their mobility and road-use capability aligned them with the higher-rate entry. The Tribunal relied on earlier coordinate bench rulings in the assessee's own case and noted that permanent registration under the motor vehicle law was not a necessary condition for the higher depreciation claim. On that basis, the assets were regarded as eligible for 30% depreciation rather than being confined to the general plant and machinery rate of 15%, and the Revenue's contrary view was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether crawler cranes and trailers used by the assessee were entitled to higher depreciation at 30% as motor vehicles, or whether they were only plant and machinery eligible for depreciation at 15%.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the character of the assets and the applicable depreciation entry. The Tribunal relied on the earlier coordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own case and noted that crawler cranes have features and mobility akin to mechanically propelled vehicles, can be adapted for use on roads, and are not denied higher depreciation merely because they are not permanently registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal also followed the consistent view that functional similarity with listed transport vehicles is relevant where the depreciation schedule does not expressly name a particular machine.

Conclusion: The assessee's crawler cranes and trailers were held eligible for higher depreciation at 30%, and the Revenue's objection was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an asset is functionally a mechanically propelled vehicle capable of being adapted for road use, higher depreciation cannot be denied merely because it is not permanently registered under the motor vehicle law.

---