Tribunal allows higher depreciation on vehicle; remands interest issue for verification; dismisses agricultural expenses claim.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, permitting higher depreciation claim on a new commercial vehicle without RTO registration, citing CBDT notification. The Tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance of interest for verification of own funds exceeding investments without earning interest, based on the balance sheet. The unpressed ground of additional agricultural expenses was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation claim on new commercial vehicle.
2. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- treated as additional agricultural expenses from alleged undisclosed sources.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 7,58,565/- out of total interest claimed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Depreciation Claim on New Commercial Vehicle:
The primary issue raised was whether the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation at the rate of 50% on a new commercial vehicle, specifically a Mercedes, acquired during the specified period. The assessee argued that under CBDT notification no.10/2009, the vehicle qualified for higher depreciation as it was purchased and put to use within the stipulated timeframe and weighed below 6000 kg. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) disagreed, stating that the vehicle was not registered as a commercial vehicle with the RTO, thus only qualifying for 15% depreciation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO’s decision, noting the vehicle was not registered as a commercial vehicle despite being used for business purposes.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal found that the CBDT notification did not mandate RTO registration for higher depreciation eligibility. The Tribunal referenced similar cases where higher depreciation was allowed without such registration, including the case of Shree Balaji Products vs. ITO. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the depreciation at 50%.

2. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- Treated as Additional Agricultural Expenses:
The assessee initially contested the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- treated as additional agricultural expenses from alleged undisclosed sources. However, during the proceedings, the assessee’s counsel chose not to press this ground. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed.

3. Disallowance of Rs. 7,58,565/- Out of Total Interest Claimed:
The AO disallowed Rs. 7,58,565/- out of the total Rs. 15,14,087/- interest claimed by the assessee on the grounds that interest-bearing funds were diverted to non-interest-bearing investments, such as investments in firms, LIC, and flat booking advances. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, agreeing with the AO’s observation that the funds were not utilized for business purposes.

The assessee contended that sufficient own funds were available to cover these investments, citing an income of Rs. 1,04,56,940/- for the year, and referenced the Bombay High Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance and Utilities and Power Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the balance sheet for the relevant financial year was crucial to verify the claim. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing verification of whether the assessee’s own funds exceeded the amount invested without earning interest.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly for statistical purposes, permitting the higher depreciation claim on the vehicle and remanding the interest disallowance issue for further verification, while dismissing the unpressed ground regarding additional agricultural expenses.

---