These two appeals filed by assessee involve common issue, hence, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for sake of convenience. We have heard both sides and have also perused material on record. First we shall take up assessee s appeal in ITA No. 4059/M/2004 which is directed against order of learned. CIT(A), Thane dt. 15th March, 2004 and it pertains to asst. yr. 1999-2000. In this appeal ground Nos. 1 to 3 are in respect of rate of depreciation for use of car whereas ground No. 4 is regarding validity of reopening of assessment under s. 147 of Act. Since no arguments were made in respect of ground No. 1, it is presumed to be not pressed. Hence same is dismissed as not pressed. facts in brief are that assessee purchased motor car between period from 1st Oct., 1998 to 31st March, 1999. This car was used by assessee for his business of civil construction. assessee claimed depreciation on same at rate of 40 per cent which was allowed under s. 143(1)(a). AO sought to rectify same under s. 154, however proceedings under that section were dropped and notice under s. 148 was issued and assessment was reopened. assessee clarified that depreciation at rate of 40 per cent was claimed in view of new entry (iid) inserted under Item III in Appendix-I to r. 5 of IT Rules, 1962 w.e.f. 1st April, 1999. AO stated that depreciation claimed by assessee at higher rate of 40 per cent for asst. yr. 2001-02 had to be restricted to 20 per cent because Maruti Zen was not commercial vehicle as confirmed by RTO Authorities. AO, accordingly, restricted depreciation to 20 per cent and made addition of Rs. 72,959 to total income of assessee. Aggrieved by this assessee carried matter into appeal before learned. CIT(A) who also confirmed action of AO following appellate order of CIT(A) for asst. yr. 2001-02. Aggrieved by this, assessee is in appeal before us. learned. counsel appearing on behalf of assessee firstly narrated factual matrix of case and thereafter made legal arguments. first argument raised by assessee s counsel was that words "commercial vehicle" was used only in IT Act,1961 and IT Rules, 1962, hence, meaning assigned to same in IT Act was relevant and only to be considered. It was also pointed out that words "commercial vehicle" was not defined in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, nor in any registration certificate issued by RTO these words were used, hence report of RTO to this effect was not relevant and consequently reliance placed by Revenue authorities thereon was also misplaced. learned. counsel also stated that in report of RTO no such specific certificate was given though same was not available with him at that time. learned. counsel then referred to relevant clause of Appendix-I and also note thereto defining term "commercial vehicle". learned counsel also referred to Explanation to third proviso of s. 32 of Act. learned counsel also referred to definitions of various terms used in Appendix-I and s. 32 and their meanings as assigned to them in t h e relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Based upon these provisions learned counsel contended that Maruti Zen car was light motor vehicle hence, same fell within meaning of definition of "commercial vehicle" as per provisions of s. 32, Appendix-I to r. 5 of IT Rules, 1962. It was also contended by learned. counsel that in Item-III of Part of Appendix I, cl. (1A) was on statute w.e.f. 23rd Aug., 1990, cl. (2)(ii) was also on statute however cl. (2)(iia) was brought on statute w.e.f. 1st April, 1999, which provided for depreciation at rate of 40 per cent on any "commercial vehicle" acquired by assessee after first day of October, 1998 but before first day of April, 1999 and which was put to use before first day of April, 1999 for purpose of business and profession of assessee and assessee complied with all these conditions, hence assessee was entitled for depreciation thereon at rate of 40 per cent. It was also contended that this new entry was inserted with intention to give boost to automobile sector by providing enhanced rate of depreciation on vehicles purchased during particular period of time. It was also contended that once separate entry was created and particular asset fell within that entry then same was to remain under same entry till it was used for purpose of business and for that duration assessee was entitled to depreciation at rate specified for that entry only. learned. Departmental Representative, on other hand, placed k reliance on order of Revenue authority. We have considered submissions made by both sides, material on record, orders of authorities below and applicable legal provisions. interesting question which has arisen before us is regarding rate of depreciation applicable to motor car acquired between 2nd Oct., 1998 and 31st March, 1999 and if same has been put to use between same period for purpose of business of assessee. As far as use of car acquired by assessee during this period for purpose of business is concerned, sam e is not in dispute. We consider it pertinent to reproduce relevant statutory provisions as under for better appreciation of legal position. IIIrd proviso to s. 32, and explanation thereto. "Provided also that where asset being commercial vehicle is acquired by assessee on or after 1st day of October, 1998 but before 1st day of April, 1999 and is put to use before 1st day of April, 1999 for purposes of business of profession, deduction in respect of such asset shall be allowed on such percentage on written down value therefore, as may be prescribed. Explanation-For purposes of this proviso (a) expression commercial vehicle means heavy goods vehicle , heavy passenger motor vehicle , light motor vehicle , medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle , but does not include maxi-cab , motor- cab , tractor and road-roller . (b) expression heavy goods vehicle , heavy passenger motor vehicle . Light motor vehicle , medium goods vehicle , medium passenger motor vehicle , maxi-cab , motor-cab , tractor and road-roller shall have meanings respectively as assigned to them in s. 2 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)." Relevant provisions of Appendix-I and note thereto. [iia Commercial vehicle which is acquired by assessee on or after 1st day of October, 1998, but before 1st day of April, 1999 and is put to use for any period before 1st day of April, 1999 for purpose of business or profession in accordance with third proviso to cl. (ii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 32 (see Note 3A below Table) 3A. "commercial vehicle" means "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "medium goods vehicle" and "medium passenger motor vehicle" but does not include "maxi-cab", "Motor-cab", "tractor" and "road-roller". expressions "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger m o t o r vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "maxi-cab", "motor-cab", "tractor" and "road-roller" shall have meanings respectively as assigned to them in section 2 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)] Relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage gross vehicle weight o f which, or tractor or road-roller unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms; "heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus gross vehicle weight of any of which, or motor car unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms; "light motor vehicle" means transport vehicle or omnibus gross vehicle weight of either of which or motor car or tractor or road-roller unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 Kilograms; "maxi-cab" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding driver, for hire or reward; "medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage other than light motor vehicle or heavy goods vehicle; "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution bus other than motor cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle; "motor cab" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding driver for hire or reward; As per third proviso to s. 32 of Act, in respect of asset being commercial vehicle acquired between 2nd Oct., 1998 and 31st March, 1999, depreciation has to be allowed on such percentage on written down value thereof as may be prescribed. As per provisions of s. 43(6)(c)(ii). WDV means written down value of that block of asset as increased by actual cost of any asset falling within that block acquired during previous year and as reduced by monies payable together with scrap value if any in respect of assets falling within that block which are so learned or discarded or demolished or destroyed during that previous year. However, for our purpose material provision is that actual cost of asset so acquired would fall within that block in year of acquisition and thereafter WDV, i.e., actual cost less depreciation allowed thereon would be material for computing depreciation in subsequent years. Thus cost of car is to be treated as WDV for computing depreciation thereon at specified percentage. Further explanation to this proviso defines that expression "commercial vehicle" would mean... "light motor vehicle" and "light motor vehicle" as defined in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, means any transport vehicle or omni bus, gross physical weight of either of which or motor car or Tractor or Road Roller unladen weight of which does not exceed 75,00 kgs. Thus motor car not exceeding specified weight is covered under definition of "light motor vehicle". It is further provided that commercial vehicle would not include "maxi-cab" and "motor-cab." maxi-cab as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers but not more than twelve passengers excluding driver for hire or reward. Similarly term "motor cab" also excludes any motor vehicle for hire or reward. If provisions of explanation to this proviso and definition of maxi-cab and motor cab as given in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are read together then motor vehicles used for hire or reward would not be covered under this proviso to s. 32 of Act and such motor vehicles would be covered under entry (2)(ii) of Item-3 of Part-A of Appendix-I to r. 5 of Rules. This conclusion further leads to interference that Legislature has given benefit of higher depreciation to assessees not engaged in business of Motor Buses, Motor Lorries and Motor Taxies on hire and defining such light motor vehicles as commercial vehicles though intentionally excluding vehicles commercially exploited for yielding income from definition of commercial vehicle further supports case of assessee. We also find sufficient force in contention of assessee that different entries exist in Appendix-I for different categories of motor vehicles for providing depreciation at specified rate depending upon period of acquisition and purpose for which they are deployed. Therefore, nomenclature of commercial vehicle should not be so construed to deprive assessee of higher depreciation when all conditions specified in Act and Rules have been met by assessee, We also hold that till such car is used by assessee for its business purpose assessee would get depreciation at rate of 40 per cent as per third proviso to s. 32 of Act. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 of assessee stand accepted. In result, appeal filed by assessee stand partly allowed. Now we shall take assessee s appeal in ITA No. 7307/M/2003 for asst. yr. 2001-02. issue raised in all grounds is identical to issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 3 of assessee s appeal for asst. yr. 1999-2000 except quantum, hence, there is no necessity to reproduce facts and contentions here again. In view of our decision therein, all grounds of assessee in this year are liable to be accepted. We order accordingly. In result, assessee s appeal stands allowed. To sum up assessee s appeal in ITA No. 4059/M/2004 for asst. yr. 1999-2000 is partly allowed and in ITA No. 7307/M/2003 is allowed. *** DALEEP S. CHANDNANI v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX