Road roller depreciation classification confined to road-making plant and machinery, limiting allowance to the lower rate.

A road roller was held not to qualify as earth-moving machinery because its function was limited to pressing down materials and not earth removal. The Gujarat High Court ruling on dumpers was treated as inapplicable, as it did not establish any general rule that a road roller is a road transport vehicle. Even on that view, a road transport vehicle was not covered by the 30% depreciation entry. The applicable classification was road-making plant and machinery under sub-item 14 of item III-B in Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, attracting only 15% depreciation. The assessee's claim for the higher rate was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's road roller was entitled to depreciation at 30% as earth-moving machinery or as a road transport vehicle, or whether it fell under the category eligible only for 15% depreciation.

Analysis: The road roller was held not to be earth-moving machinery, since its function was only to press down materials and it was not treated as machinery used for earth removal. The reliance on the Gujarat High Court decision concerning dumpers was held inapplicable, because that decision did not lay down any general test making a road roller a road transport vehicle. Even if the road roller were viewed as a road transport vehicle, that category was not included among the items eligible for 30% depreciation. The applicable entry was sub-item 14 of item III-B in Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which covered road-making plant and machinery and allowed only 15% depreciation.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to 30% depreciation; only 15% depreciation was allowable.

Final Conclusion: The depreciation claim was restricted to the lower rate and the assessee's appeal failed.

---