Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue's appeals concern the eligibility of crawler cranes for higher depreciation at 30% compared to the standard 15% for plant and machinery. The Revenue argued that crawler cranes are not motor vehicles and thus not eligible for the higher rate, distinguishing them from other machinery like forklifts and JCBs.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on crawler cranes is no longer res integra, referencing multiple prior decisions from coordinate benches and the Bombay High Court that have consistently allowed higher depreciation. The Revenue failed to present any distinguishing facts or legal arguments.
Key Issues
Whether crawler cranes used by the assessee are eligible for higher depreciation at 30% as against the standard rate of 15% for plant and machinery.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 2(28)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA No.2062 & 2063/M/2024, for
assessment years 2009-10 & 2017-18 arise against the National
Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi’s as many DIN & order No.ITBA/
NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060291957(1) & No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-
24/1060291988(1) even dated 30.01.2024, in proceedings under
section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
2 ITA Nos.2062 & 2063/M/2024 M/s. Samarth Lifters PVt. Ltd. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able
assistance coming from both the parties with the Revenue’s
identical substantive ground raised herein seeks to revive the
assessment findings disallowing assessee’s claim of higher
depreciation @ 30% pertaining to its crawler cranes as plant &
machinery eligible for 15% rate only. The Revenue’s identical
pleadings herein in both these cases read as under:
“A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the crawler cranes are eligible for depreciation equated with either with a motor lorry or a motor truck which will be registered as a heavy motor vehicle as they will be assigned to carry/transport materials from one place to another place on road whereas crawler cranes and dozers will be put into operation for a specific purpose of transportation of goods in a factory premises or in any other enclosed premises and hence crawler cranes and dozers fall within the scope of a particular type of machinery?” B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the facts of all the cases relied upon by ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y 2011-12 which is relied upon by the Ld.CIT (A) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and which is clearly discussed by the assessing officer in his assessment order in as much as
3 ITA Nos.2062 & 2063/M/2024 M/s. Samarth Lifters PVt. Ltd. the cases refer to depreciation of forklifts, mobile cranes, truck crane, JCB whereas in the present case only crawler cranes and dozers are not considered for higher depreciation?
C. Whether on the facts and ciroumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Rajasthan State Road Transport Co and Others Vs. Santosh and others 7 SCC 94 (SC) (2013) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court remarked "as to whether a particular vehicle can be defined as Motor Vehicle in terms of section 2(28) of the Act is to be determined on the facts of each taking into consideration the use of the vehicle and its suitability for being used upon the road" without appreciating the fact that in the asessee's case the crawler cranes are used for lifting heavy articles from one place to another at the site of assessee's clients ?
We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement
rival stands against/in support of the correctness of learned
CIT/NFAC’s findings treating the assessee’s crawler cranes as
eligible for 30% depreciation than plant & machinery entitled
for the very relief @ 15% only. It emerges during the course of
hearing that the instant issue is no more res-integra as this
tribunal’s various co-ordinate benches in ITA
No.1781/M/2015 dated 08.12.2017 for A.Y. 2011-12, ITA
4 ITA Nos.2062 & 2063/M/2024 M/s. Samarth Lifters PVt. Ltd. No.2186/M/2018 dated 31.07.2019 for A.Y. 2014-15, ITA
No.5738/MUM/2018 ITAT dated 03.12.2019 for A.Y. 2013-14,
ITA No.6233/MUM/2018 dated 04.12.2019 for A.Y. 2015-16,
ITA No.430/M/02 dated 20.12.2004 for A.Y. 1998-99, Hon.
Bombay High Court, Appeal No.127 of 2006 dated 15.12.2008
have already rejected the Revenue’s arguments.
The learned departmental representative is fair enough
indeed in not pin pointing any distinction on facts of law; as
the case may be, in all these assessment years so far as the
nature of assessee’s assets i.e. crawler cranes is concerned.
We thus adopt judicial consistency to uphold the learned lower
authorities’ findings holding the assessee as eligible for higher
rate of depreciation @ 30% in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
These Revenue’s twin appeals are dismissed in above terms. A cop of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
5 ITA Nos.2062 & 2063/M/2024 M/s. Samarth Lifters PVt. Ltd. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.