https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77495 The court upheld the respondent-assessee's claim for depreciation on trucks/buses under clause (3)(ii) of Part A, rejecting the Assessing Officer's disallowance under clause (2). It determined that the vehicles were hired out for consideration, falling under the definition of "hire" rather than "lease," justifying the appellate authorities' decisions. Citing relevant legal precedents, including the Madras High Court judgment, the court concluded that the respondent was entitled to depreciation under clause (3)(ii) for leasing out vehicles to third parties for consideration. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77495 The court upheld the respondent-assessee's claim for depreciation on trucks/buses under clause (3)(ii) of Part A, rejecting the Assessing Officer's disallowance under clause (2). It determined that the vehicles were hired out for consideration, falling under the definition of "hire" rather than "lease," justifying the appellate authorities' decisions. Citing relevant legal precedents, including the Madras High Court judgment, the court concluded that the respondent was entitled to depreciation under clause (3)(ii) for leasing out vehicles to third parties for consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77495