SHIV CONSTRUCTION CO. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
[Citation -1984-LL-0605-2]

Citation 1984-LL-0605-2
Appellant Name SHIV CONSTRUCTION CO.
Respondent Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/06/1984
Assessment Year 1980-81
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags higher depreciation • development rebate • transport vehicle
Bot Summary: These assessee has claimed depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent in respect of Dumpers. The assessee has been granted development rebate in respect of Dumpers for the asst. Before us the assessee's Advocate has relied upon the language of relevant Entry No. 9 in Appendix 1 part-I Division III-D which is as follows: Motor buses-Motors lorries. The Ld. Departmental representative argued that the assessee cannot take one position of the purpose of claiming development rebate and another position for claiming higher depreciation. Counsel for the assessee as stated above, that the language of entry should decide the question. If the words road transport vehicles are absent in the Appendix, the word, dumpers is also absent. The assessee is not entitled to the higher depreciation on Dumpers.


These assessee has claimed depreciation at rate of 30 per cent in respect of Dumpers. ITO has disallowed claim and CIT (A) has confirmed that order. assessee's business was construction of roads and buildings and excavation of canals for Government and other agencies. assessee has been granted development rebate in respect of Dumpers for asst. yr. 1974- 75 by Tribunal holding that Dumpers were not road transport vehicles. For asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 this Tribunal has held that since it was t h e assessee's case and held by this Tribunal that Dumpers were not road transport vehicles but were construction machinery, assessee could not now claim that they were transport vehicles, and not machinery in order to claim depreciation at higher rate of 30 per cent. Before us assessee's Advocate has relied upon language of relevant Entry No. 9 in Appendix 1 part-I Division III-D which is as follows: " Motor buses-Motors lorries." He submitted that Dumpers were only lorries but having different kind of mechanism for loading and unloading. In case of lorries side walls of loading part would be open down whereas in case of Dumbers entire container would be lifted up by mechanism so as to unload material. He also cited meaning given in Oxford Dictionary which states that Dumpers were dumping truck. He submitted that entry itself did not use expression road transport vehicle and therefore there was no scope for considering this question from that point of view. Ld. Departmental representative argued that assessee cannot take one position of purpose of claiming development rebate and another position for claiming higher depreciation. We are of view that question would be decided on exact language of relevant entry. This is not only according to rule of interpretation but it is also highly desirable in controversy of this kind. It is not advisable to find out equivalents whether one item is similar to another or not. It is also submission of ld. Counsel for assessee as stated above, that language of entry should decide question. If words "road transport vehicles" are absent in Appendix, word, dumpers is also absent. We find that Dumpers are not mentioned in entries in respect of which 30 per cent depreciation has been allowed. Numerous items have been mentioned as shown in list and there was nothing to prevent Dumpers being enumerated therein. Therefore, assessee is not entitled to higher depreciation on Dumpers. On this point appeal is rejected. next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of amount of Rs. 4 , 5 0 0 out of expenditure pertaining to kitchen etc. assessee was maintaining kitchen at work site and when partners visited work site they utilised this facility. disallowance is on account of this utilisation by partners. assessee's argument is that nature of work was such that it was necessary for partners to make use of this facility when they visited work site. CIT(A) has disallowed it. In our view although it may be necessary for partners utilise kitchen when they visited work site, fact remains that partners did utilise it. That is sufficient for disallowance to be made. CIT(A)'s order is confirmed. appeal is rejected. *** SHIV CONSTRUCTION CO. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
Report Error