TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Ld. Counsel and Ld. D.R. and perused the paper book placed on record. 3. Briefly stated, assessee is a company engaged in the business of engineering and fabrication, filed return of income admitting total income of Rs. 4,01,94,019. A.O. completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 23.01.2013 inter alia, disallowing depreciation on building which was claimed in excess and another disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The Principal CIT examined the record and has come to a conclusion that A.O. has not verified the claim of depreciation on commercial vehicles at 50% which was allowed at Rs. 6,48,560. Accordingly, he issued a notice under section 263 of the IT Act on 05.03.2015 calling for objections of the assessee. 3.1. Assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Learned Principal Commissioner is contrary to the facts and law on the points in dispute. 2. The Learned Commissioner erred in assuming his jurisdiction U/s. 263 based on the audit objection and to that extent the order is not in accordance with law. 3. The Learned Principal Commissioner has erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the Commercial Vehicles need not be used for the purpose or letting then on hire to claim depreciation @ 50%. 4. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in denying depreciation @ 50% in respect of Commercial Vehicles acquired during the period 01.01.2009 to 01.10.2009. 5. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in restricting the depreciation to 15% on Commercial Vehicles while th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35. It was also informed that there was only one addition of vehicle valued at Rs. 2,93,444 which was also included in the depreciation schedule during the year. The relevant invoices were placed at pages 53, 54, 55 of the paper book which are in fact filed before A.O. in the course of assessment proceedings. As seen from the depreciation schedule also, the assessee's opening WDV was at Rs. 10,03,676 with additions of 'more than 180 days' at Rs. 2,93,444, on which depreciation was claimed at Rs. 6,48,560 which was allowed by the A.O. These indicate that A.O. did examine the claim of depreciation and the opinion of the Principal CIT that A.O. did not verify is not borne out of facts. 6.1. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oices, assessee has purchased EISHER Vehicle with 90PS Max. Eng. Power which was registered as 'Campers Vans' on 27.02.2009. The total value of this asset was at Rs. 13,38,235. Since this vehicle was purchased in the previous year relevant for A.Y. 2009- 2010, assessee has claimed depreciation in that year at 50% as per the Rules. Since the vehicle was put to use for less than 180 days in that year, having been registered on February, 2009, assessee claimed only 25% ( half of 50%) of the depreciation and opening WDV of this year stood at Rs. 10,03,676. Since assessee claim of 50% depreciation on that vehicle was made in earlier year and as no action was undertaken by the Principal CIT to modify that, we are of the opinion that Principal CIT....