MURARILAL MITTAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4858/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 September 2018AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine if the assessee possessed a valid taxi license. If so, depreciation should be allowed at 30% on motor cars used as taxis.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation at 40% on motor cars used for rental business. The Assessing Officer restricted depreciation to 15% for lack of plausible explanation. The First Appellate Authority confirmed this.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the rate of depreciation allowable on motor cars used for rental business. The secondary issues involved consequential interest and penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh N. Shah, Shri Neil Philip-DR
Hearing: 11/09/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24/06/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

1.

The first ground raised by the assessee pertains to confirming the addition of Rs.13,12,580/- by way of disallowing part depreciation on motor car used in the business of running on hire.

2.

During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Mitesh N. Shah, claimed that the assessee is owner of motor car which were given on rent, therefore, as per appendix-1, the depreciation may be restricted to @30% against claimed @ 40% by the assessee. The ld. DR, Shri Neil Philip, contended that for rental business in the field of motor vehicles, there should be license to run the business, therefore, the depreciation may not be allowed. In reply, the Ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the motor car was given on rent this year only.

Shri Murarilal Mittal, 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared income of Rs.11,65,09,999/- in his return which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1), along with questionnaire were served upon the assessee. From the details filed by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.21,00,128/- on motor car and motor expenses of Rs.78,953/- and car rental income of Rs.9 lakhs. The assessee claimed depreciation on the car at the rate of 40%. As per the Revenue, no plausible explanation/details were filed, thus, the depreciation was rightly restricted to 15%. Considering the totality of facts, we remand this issue to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to examine the factual matrix. The assessee is directed to produce the evidence whether the assessee was having a valid taxi license and if it is produced, the motor car may be considered as taxi and the depreciation may be allowed @ 30% against the claim of 40% by the assessee. This ground of the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes.

Shri Murarilal Mittal, 3. So far as, levy of interest under section 234B and 234 C of the Act is concerned, it is consequential in nature.

4.

So far as proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, it is premature and requires no deliberation.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 11/09/2018.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →