1983 (9) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 50,000 on transport of the same from Bombay to Secunderabad by road. It had claimed the latter amount as a deduction and was allowed by the ITO. The assessee had also claimed depreciation at 30 per cent on the crane which was also allowed. The Commissioner was of the view that the allowance of Rs. 50,000 as a revenue deduction and acceptance of the depreciation at 30 per cent were both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. On these two issues, he issued notice under section 263 and heard the case. It was the assessee's case that since the crane was purchased during the running of the business, it could be claimed as a revenue deduction. This argument did not appeal to the Commissioner. As for the rate of depreciation, the assessee'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....our such a procedure. If, however, those responsible for the accounts insist on their own way of adjustment, the auditor should at least see that the additional amount charged to each asset in this manner is clearly indicated on the balance sheet. Rather than permanently capitalise expenditure which is revenue in its nature, a better plan would be to treat the amount as deferred revenue expenditure and charge it off to revenue over a period of three to five years, as circumstances would admit." He pointed out that the assessee treated the expenditure as revenue expenditure in the accounts and, according to him, the above extract clearly supports the method of accounting in debiting it as revenue expenditure. He also cited authorities thoug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iew he claimed, would work adversely against the assessee in respect of investment allowance, etc. It is the standard practice of accountants as well as revenue officers to accept such outlay as cost. He pointed out that any other view would be contrary to the established accountancy practice as well as decided case law. As for depreciation, he claimed that the assessee uses the machinery not for transport or earth-moving, but for the purposes as a crane for unloading the wagons, etc. Hence, according to him, it cannot be considered to be an earth-moving machinery nor could it be considered as a tractor because it runs on a tractor. He also opposed introduction of materials to identify the crane with some other entry. 3. We have carefully ....