TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT allows higher depreciation rate for equipment hire business, dismissing Revenue's appeal.</h1> <h3>The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham, Kutch Versus M/s. PC Patel And Co.</h3> The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham, Kutch Versus M/s. PC Patel And Co. - TMI Issues involved: The appeal filed by the Revenue against the Appellate order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.Issue A: Nature of business and higher rate of depreciation The Revenue contended that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in defining the nature of business as transporter and allowing higher rate of depreciation @30% on dumpers instead of 15% allowed by the AO. The Revenue argued that if the vehicles were given on hire, the assessee should have earned income from hiring out the equipment. The Revenue further claimed that if the assessee took the equipment on hire, there should be no claim for depreciation. The Revenue prayed for setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restoring that of AO.Issue B: Failure to appreciate income from hiring out equipment The Revenue argued that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if the vehicles were given on hire, the assessee should have earned income from hiring out the equipment. The Revenue contended that the Ld.CIT(A) did not consider that if the assessee had taken the equipment on hire, claiming depreciation would not be justified.Issue C: Failure to consider equipment on hire The Revenue claimed that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if the assessee had taken the equipment on hire, there should be no claim for depreciation. The Revenue argued that the Ld.CIT(A) did not properly consider the aspect of equipment being given on hire and the implications on claiming depreciation.The ITAT, after considering the arguments and perusing the materials on record, upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). The ITAT noted that the assessee was engaged in providing equipment and motor vehicles on hire, which led to the receipt of income from contracts involving various operations, including transportation. The ITAT found that to claim higher depreciation, it was necessary that the goods transported belonged to someone else, and the use of motor vehicles for transportation was crucial. Based on the facts, judicial pronouncements, and the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the ITAT concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The ITAT followed a Co-ordinate Bench decision and allowed the benefit of higher rate of depreciation @ 30% on Dumper, Tipper, etc., as the grounds raised by the Revenue were deemed devoid of merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
