Gujarat High Court
M/S Prasad Multi Services Private ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 February, 2022
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/TAXAP/303/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 303 of 2021
=============================================
M/S PRASAD MULTI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1),
AHMEDABAD
=============================================
Appearance:
MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 11/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961') is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'A' Bench, dated 21.12.2018 passed in the ITA No.2270/Ahd/2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13.
2. We are called upon to answer the following substantial question of law:
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Respondent in limiting allowance of depreciation to 15% as against the claim at the rate of 30% on various types of cranes used in hiring business under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
3. We have heard Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant - assessee and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 15 21:17:51 IST 2022 C/TAXAP/303/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022 the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Karan Sangani, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue.
4. The substantial question of law, referred to above, is no loner res-integra in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Prasad Multi Services Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax Appeal No.78 of 2019, decided on 16.07.2019.
5. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the position of law is now clear. Since the assessee in the case on hand is engaged in the business of hiring the cranes and might be using the cranes for his personal construction business, would not disentitled him to claim higher depreciation once it is shown that the assessee is in the business of hiring the cranes.
6. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, dated 22.12.2018, in the ITA No.2270/Ahd/2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13 is hereby quashed and set aside. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) NEHA Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 15 21:17:51 IST 2022