TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT (A) erred in directing to allow depreciation @ 30% on plant & machinery instead of eligible rate of 15%. 2. CIT (A) erred in interpreting the definition of the commercial vehicles as defined in Entry III-(3)(II) of Appendix-1 of I.T Rules. 3. The CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the facts that revenue did not prefer further appeal in the assessee's own case for A.Y 2005-06 in ITA No.464/Hyd/2015 dated 06.07.2016 because of low tax effect. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing". 2. We find that these are the similar grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd in ITA No.856 to 858/Hyd/2018. For the detailed reasons given therein, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order and the documents placed on record are considered. It is seen that though the motor graders and wheel loaders are not depicted as motor vehicles by the appellant, the same have been registered as 'other vehicle-MMV' by the Registration Authorities. In view of the ratios laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by various Tribunals holding that the motor vehicles designed for special services are to be treated as motor vehicles, the appellant is eligible for depreciation @ 40% as claimed. Reliance is specially placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka Tribunal in the case of Bothra Shipping Services Vs. CIT (ITA No. 586/Kol/2010) and CIT Vs. Gaylord Construction (2010) 190 Taxmann 406 (Ker). Accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we also find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 50 (Guj.) has considered the expression "motor lorries" in Entry III-E(1A) of Appendix I to IT Rules, 1962 to hold that the vehicles which are registered as heavy motor vehicles would, for the reason given, clearly fall within the expression "Motor Lorries" in Entry III-E(1A) of the Table in Appendix I to IT Rules and since they were used by the assessee in its business of running them on hire, the assessee was entitled to higher rate of depreciation. 7. Similar view was expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ansari Holdings & Investments (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (2007) 12 SOT 438 (Hyd.) wherein mobile cranes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd No.1 taken here-in-above, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 43B at Rs. 4,49,999/- instead of Rs. 2,74,167/- outstanding as per Annexure D of the Tax Audit Report for the relevant A.Y. 3. That the respondent craves leave, to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated here-in-above either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal". 5. For the reasons given in C.O. No.34/Hyd/2018 in ITA No.858/Hyd/2018, this ground of appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion in C.O. 34/Hyd/2018 is reproduced hereunder: "10. As regards Ground No.1, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that thoug....