TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal and CIT(A) are right in law in allowing claim of excess depreciation without properly considering that section 32(1)(ii) of the Act read with Rule 5 and Appendix 1, inter alia, provides for depreciation at 30% in respect of motor buses/lorries/taxi used in the assessee's business of running them on hire, whereas in the instant case, the vehicles are used for assessee's own business and therefore, will not be eligible for higher rate of depreciation?" 2. Fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereafter passed a consequential order dated 28.11.2016 under Section 143(3) of the Act, by which the claim of the assessee for depreciation was negatived. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was allowed by the Commissioner by an order dated 05.06.2017. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal whereas the assessee filed a cross-objection. The Tribunal, by a common order dated 12.04.2018, dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue as well as the cross-objection preferred by the assessee. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the main activity of the assessee i.e. business of steve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal and has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the order dated 07.09.2013 passed in the case of the assessee for the previous year which has attained finality. It is further submitted that identical issue was dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee vide order dated 07.09.2013 in respect of previous year. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. A.M.CONSTRUCTIONS' (1999) 238 ITR 775 (AP), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. LAKE PALACE HOTELS AND MOTELS P. LTD.&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to suggest that the assessee's hiring business is a stray incident. On the other hand, there are enough material to conclude that the business activity of the assessee in the hiring of vehicles has regularity. Therefore, the orders of the learned CIT(Appeals) are confirmed." 3.3 The AR of the Appellant also relied upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai 'C' Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Suthanther Assumtha reported in 75 Taxmann.com 67. In the said case, the assessee was engaged in the business of transport and claimed depreciation at the rate of 30% on loaders, dozers and water tankers. The AO disallowed the higher rate of depreciation as the assessee was using his own vehicles for hire and also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neries and the labour as well. Therefore, it is true that the appellant is recovering the hire charges for tippers and machineries from the composite charge recovered from its clients. The appellant does not have the goods of his own as appellant is neither a manufacturer nor a trader. Thus, the appellant is recovering the hire charges for the tippers and the machineries in the composite receipts received during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in appeal. Further, the appellant has also received hire charges amounting to Rs. 1,00,34,856/- apart from the composite charges received for rendering of various services at the port. This goes to prove that the business of hiring of the appellant is not a stray incident. T....