2023 (7) TMI 989

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar (A.Y) 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Earth Moving Equipments on hire basis and Mining Contractor, Cargo Handlers and Transporters. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the assessee filed its original Return of Income on 30-09-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 17,16,53,528/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and made disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- on various expenses claimed by the assessee and also disallowed higher rate of depreciation on Dumper, Tipper etc. @ 30% instead of 15% of depreciation. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the benefit of higher ra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... available on record. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in assessee's own case in Tax Appeal Nos. 418, 420 & 421 of 2018 dated 01-05-2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 held as follows: "....The assessee has been awarded contract for providing equipments on hire with manpower to execute the work of excavation, loading and removal of minerals from one place to another. The entire operation is scheduled and controlled by the principal. The assessee is required to provide stipulated equipments and vehicles on hire. The assessee would not be allowed to remove any equipments or vehicles provided under the contract without prior permission of the principal. The business of the assessee-firm itself was providing equipments and motor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereof pertains to "machinery and plant ". Under sub-item [2] of Item [3] (iii), the rate of depreciation on "motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in the business of running them on hire" is prescribed @ 30%. It is in this context, we have to test the correctness of the view taken by CIT [A] and the Tribunal. Revenue's main contention appears to be that the assessee had not given the said machinery on hire since the assessee was awarded the contract for mining. However, we have noticed some of the leading terms of the tender. These terms inter alia required the assessee to provide machinery for hire for excavation of overburden; transportation of such excavated overburden minerals; transportation of minerals from mines to pit-head....