T.K.HASSAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1488/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 November 2019AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Crawler Cranes are entitled to depreciation at 30%, following its own previous decisions. For the Section 40A(3) issue, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation at 30% on Crawler Cranes, but the lower authorities allowed only 15% as they were not considered motor vehicles. The assessee also faced disallowance under Section 40A(3) for certain payments.

What were the issues?

Whether Crawler Cranes are eligible for 30% depreciation and the validity of disallowances made under Section 40A(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32,Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate, Shri Shrreyans, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 24.09.2019Pronounced: 05.11.2019

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Chennai, dated 06.12.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The first ground of appeal is with regard to disallowance of depreciation at the rate of 30%.

3. Shri D. Anand, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 30% on Crawler Cranes. However, according to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals) disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the Crawler Cranes are not motor vehicles, therefore, they allowed depreciation at the rate of 15% instead of 30%. Placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09 and 2012- 13 in & 1570/Chny/2017, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that this Tribunal has allowed depreciation at the rate of 30% after placing reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Sanco Trans Ltd. v. ACIT (1997) 61 ITD 317.

4. We heard Shri A. Sundararajan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. It is an admitted fact that this Tribunal in Sanco Trans Ltd. (supra) examined this issue and found that Crawler Crane is entitled for higher depreciation. In the assessee's own case for assessment years 2008-09 and 2012-13, this Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of Sanco Trans Ltd. (supra), found that the Crawler Crane is entitled for depreciation at the rate of 30%. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. By following the order of this Tribunal in Sanco Trans Ltd. (supra) and in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2008-09 and 2012-13, we hold that the Crawler Cranes are entitled for depreciation at the rate of 30%. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow depreciation at the rate of 30% on the Crawler Cranes.

5. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

6.

Shri D. Anand, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that no payment exceeded ₹20,000/- per day. According to the Ld. counsel, all the payments were made at the site and it was within the limit prescribed under Section 40A(3) of the Act. This Tribunal, in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09 and 2012- 13, examined this issue and remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. Therefore, the Ld.counsel submitted that for this year also the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

7.

We heard Shri A. Sundararajan, the Ld. D.R. also. An identical issue with regard to payment which exceeded prescribed limit of ₹20,000/- was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer by this Tribunal for assessment year 2008-09 and 20012-13. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, for the year under consideration also, the Assessing Officer shall re- examine the matter. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Act is remitted back to his file.

The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on 5th November, 2019 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →