Express depreciation entries and personal-use disallowance govern claims for dumpers and work-site kitchen s

Higher depreciation on dumpers was not available because the relevant allowance entry covered only items expressly listed and could not be expanded by analogy; dumpers were not named in the schedule, so the claim failed. Kitchen expenditure at the work site was also disallowed to the extent the facility was used by the partners, because such actual personal use made that portion partly personal in character despite its business setting. The lower authority's order was therefore sustained in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dumpers were entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 30% under the relevant depreciation entry; (ii) Whether the amount spent on kitchen expenses at the work site, to the extent used by the partners, was allowable as business expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether dumpers were entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 30% under the relevant depreciation entry.

Analysis: The relevant depreciation allowance had to be determined from the exact language of the appendix entry. Dumpers were not specifically enumerated among the items eligible for 30% depreciation, and the entry did not permit extension by analogy or by treating dumpers as an equivalent of other listed vehicles. Since the higher rate applied only to items expressly covered by the schedule, the absence of dumpers from the entry was ative.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to higher depreciation on dumpers.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount spent on kitchen expenses at the work site, to the extent used by the partners, was allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: Although the kitchen facility was maintained at the work site, the partners did use it when visiting the site. The actual user by the partners attracted disallowance, and the necessity of such use did not prevent the expenditure from being treated as partly personal in character.

Conclusion: The disallowance of kitchen expenses was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, and the order of the lower authority was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Depreciation and deduction claims must be confined to the express terms of the relevant allowance entry, and expenditure partly used by partners personally is liable to disallowance notwithstanding its connection with business operations.

---