Court upholds higher depreciation for hire business motor buses, emphasizing commercial purpose and economic impact.

The court upheld the Assessee's claim for higher depreciation for motor buses used in a hire business, rejecting the Assessing Officer's restrictive interpretation. The Tribunal's decision allowing 30% depreciation was supported, emphasizing the commercial purpose and economic impact of vehicles used in a hire business compared to personal use. The court found no fault with the Tribunal's interpretation, leading to the dismissal of the main cases and disposal of any pending applications.

---

---

Issues: Interpretation of depreciation provision for motor buses used in hire business

Issue 1: Common questions of law and facts in multiple appeals
The judgment involves four appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench Amritsar for different assessment years. The appeals were consolidated for convenience, and the facts were primarily taken from ITA No.101 of 2018.

Issue 2: Disallowance of depreciation for buses used in hire business
The appeals were against the orders of the Tribunal allowing 30% depreciation to the Assessee for buses owned and run on hire. The Assessee claimed depreciation under New Appendix I for motor buses used in the business of running them on hire. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation, interpreting the provision to apply only when buses were taken on hire. The Tribunal upheld the Assessee's claim, stating that the natural interpretation of the provision supported allowing higher depreciation for vehicles run for hire compared to those used solely by the assessee.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed the interpretation of the depreciation provision for motor buses used in a hire business. The Assessing Officer's restrictive reading of the provision was rejected in favor of a broader and more natural interpretation supported by the Tribunal. The court emphasized that the phrase "business of running" inherently implied running for hire, as opposed to personal use. This distinction justified the Assessee's claim for higher depreciation, as vehicles used for hire business would have a different commercial purpose and economic impact compared to those used for personal use. The court found no fault with the Tribunal's decision and concluded that no other question of law arose in the case. As a result, the main cases were dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.

---