TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken by the assessee in the grounds of appeal : 1.The order under section 263 dated 19-2-2001 passed by the CIT API for the assessment year 1996-97 is not justified and sustainable either in fact or in law and in both. 2.The ld. CIT API ought to have considered that the assessee's main business being hiring of cranes to customers and that cranes being heavy machinery which have to be necessarily mounted on motor lorries and registered as such under the MV Act, the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40% under item (ii), Block III of plant and machinery in the schedule of depreciation. 3.The CIT API therefore erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation at 25% on the cranes. 3.1 The facts of the case are as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and motor taxies used in a business of running them on hire". The ld. CIT therefore, after giving an opportunity to the assessee held that depreciation at the rate of 25 per cent was allowable on the cranes. For coming to the above conclusion, the ld. CIT noted that the claim of the assessee was not supported by any case laws whereas the view of the revenue was supported by the following case laws : 1.CIT v. S.C.S. Rig Service [1996] 220 ITR 64 (Mad.) 2.CIT v. Popular Borewell Service [1992] 194 ITR 12 (Mad.) 3.CIT v. Super Drills [1988] 174 ITR 640 (AP) Aggrieved by the above, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the ld. Departmental Representative extensi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 26 (Hyd.) of 2004, dated 30-11-2004] the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the appellant has failed to prove that the impugned cranes had the same attributes as those considered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers (supra). He, therefore, submitted that the ld. CIT was justified in allowing depreciation on the impugned cranes at 25 per cent only. 6. It seems that the nature of business of the appellant is not material handling but financing and leasing as has been noted by the ld. CIT in para 2 of his order. It is also noticed that the ld. CIT in para 6 of his order noted that in support of the claim no case laws were cited by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case laws relied upon by the appellant as well as the revenue. 8. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Gujco Carriers (supra), after going into the dictionary meaning of the word 'lorry' and 'truck', held that the above words would mean not only any motor vehicle designed to carry freight or goods but also to perform special services like fire-fighting etc. It was noted by the Court that the crane truck was a portable boom mounted on an industrial truck which could be used with hooks, crabs and slings for bundled or coiled material. After considering the definition of goods carriage as per section 2(14) of the MV Act, 1988, it was held by the Court that mobile crane registered as heavy motor vehicle would clearly fall withi....