Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I v. H.B.Leasing And Finance Tool
[Citation -2014-LL-1126-118]

Citation 2014-LL-1126-118
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I
Respondent Name H.B.Leasing And Finance Tool
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/11/2014
Assessment Year 1989-90
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags higher rate of depreciation • manufacturing company
Bot Summary: Standing Counsel with Mr.Nitin Gulati, Mr.Judy James Advs. versus M/S. H.B.LEASING AND FINANCE TOOL Respondent Through: Mr.Counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO ORDER 26.11.2014 This appeal by the revenue pertains to the Assessment Year 1989-90 and was admitted for hearing vide order dated 27.11.2003 on the following three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the claim of the assessee under Rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 It is pointed out by the counsel for the assessee that printed paper book filed in the present case does not enclose the relevant orders pertaining to the Assessment Year 1989-90. The first two questions have to be answered in favour of the respondent assessee and against the appellant revenue in view of the decision of this Court in ITA No. 116/2003, following the decision in the case of the respondent assessee in ITA No. 6/2000, decided on 04.07.2003 titled Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd., 2014 220 TAXMAN 215. Question No. 3 relates to disallowance by applying Rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. As per the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 40,823/-, out of which, the assessee had disallowed Rs.6,843/- under Rule 6D. The balance amount of Rs.33,980/-, it was claimed, was not hit or covered by Rule 6D on the ground that it was paid for local conveyance during outstation tours by employees of the respondent-assessee. It is stated by the counsel for the respondent assessee that Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Vidyut Metalics Ltd. 1993 203 ITR 779 has decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee. Looking at the paltry amount, we are not inclined to go into this question and the question of law is therefore not answered.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 117/2003 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I Appellant Through: Mr.N.P.Sahni,Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Nitin Gulati, Mr.Judy James Advs. versus M/S. H.B.LEASING AND FINANCE TOOL Respondent Through: Mr.Counsel (appearance not given) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO ORDER 26.11.2014 This appeal by revenue pertains to Assessment Year 1989-90 and was admitted for hearing vide order dated 27.11.2003 on following three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Tribunal was correct in law in holding that assessee was entitled to depreciation @ 100% on tankers mounted on chassis of trucks? 2. Whether Tribunal was correct in law in directing grant of higher rate of depreciation on leased out trucks to Indian Oil Corporation? 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of case Tribunal was correct in law in allowing claim of assessee under Rule 6D of Income Tax Rules, 1962? It is pointed out by counsel for assessee that printed paper book filed in present case does not enclose relevant orders pertaining to Assessment Year 1989-90. In these circumstances, we have ignored printed paper book and have relied upon original grounds of appeal. first two questions have to be answered in favour of respondent assessee and against appellant revenue in view of decision of this Court in ITA No. 116/2003, following decision in case of respondent assessee in ITA No. 6/2000, decided on 04.07.2003 titled Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd., [2014] 220 TAXMAN 215 (Delhi). Question No. 3 relates to disallowance by applying Rule 6D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. As per findings recorded by Tribunal, assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 40,823/-, out of which, assessee had disallowed Rs.6,843/- under Rule 6D. balance amount of Rs.33,980/-, it was claimed, was not hit or covered by Rule 6D on ground that it was paid for local conveyance during outstation tours by employees of respondent-assessee. Tribunal has followed decision of Bombay High Court reported as CIT vs. Acme Manufacturing Company Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 460 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Chemet [1999] 240 ITR 624 (Bom.). It is stated by counsel for respondent assessee that Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Vidyut Metalics Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 779 (Cal.) has decided similar issue in favour of assessee. Looking at paltry amount, we are not inclined to go into this question and question of law is therefore not answered. appeal is disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J V. KAMESWAR RAO, J NOVEMBER 26, 2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I v. H.B.Leasing And Finance Tool
Report Error