TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing depreciation on aircrafts @ 40% as against depreciation allowed @ 15% by the Assessing Officer." 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had claimed depreciation on Aeroplanes owned by it @ 40% as prescribed in depreciation Appendix-I, however, the A.O allowed depreciation @ 15% being the general rate of depreciation of plant and machinery. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs SRC Aviation Pvt. Ltd. directed the A.O to allow the claim of the assessee. The relevant findings have been given by the ld. CIT(A) in para 6 and 7 of the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the head "aeroplanes which was distinctively described in the old Appendix as applicable in the case of the CIT Vs Kirlosker Oil Engines (supra)". "9. This court is conscious of the fact that the generic term "aircraft" is broader and there can be no doubt that it encompasses the expression aeroplane. However, this court is not called upon to interpret the term "aircraft" in the present appeal. The question is whether the "Beechcraft Super King Air B-200C" purchased by the assessee fell within the description of aeroplane. Ld. Counsel for the revenue sought to urge that the "airplane - aeroengine" included only aero engine which can be used for airplane, covered by the Entry III(3)(i) in the head "Plant & Machinery". We see no warrant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove discussion, the appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed and A.O is directed to allow depreciation @ 40% instead of 15%." 5. Now the Department is an appeal. The ld. DR although supported the order of the A.O but could not rebutt the findings given by the ld. CIT(A). In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and also submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide order dated 26.4.2013 by this Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2589 to 2591/Del/2012 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. Copy of the said order was furnished. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the reason that 'aeroplane' is a machine much bigger, heavier and powerful than an aircraft which travels in the air more than an aircraft. But, for that reason the aircraft owned by the assessee cannot be thrown out of the category of 'aeroplane' and the aircraft owned by the assessee cannot be considered only as 'Plant and Machinery' which is a term distinct to such type of aircraft; In many cases the department is considering such aircraft as 'aeroplane' and granting depreciation to the respective assessees @ 40% and such contention of the assessee is based on the information given by the department itself. The department has not been able to bring on record any of the cases wherein such aircraft has been considered by them eligible fo....