IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.07.2019 1. ITA No.101 of 2018 (O&M) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh Appellant versus M/s Taj Travels Pvt. Ltd., F-77, 1st Floor, Civil Line, Bathinda. Respondent 2. ITA No.102 of 2018 (O&M) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh Appellant versus M/s Taj Travels Pvt. Ltd., F-77, 1st Floor, Civil Line, Bathinda. Respondent 3. ITA No.109 of 2018 (O&M) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, ChandigarhAppellant versus M/s Taj Travels Pvt. Ltd., F-77, 1st Floor, Civil Line, Bathinda. Respondent 1 of 4 ITA No.101 of 2018 (O&M) 2 4. ITA No.170 of 2018 (O&M) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh Appellant versus M/s Taj Travels Pvt. Ltd., F-77, 1st Floor, Civil Line, Bathinda. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present : Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for appellant. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of above mentioned four appeals. Since common questions of law and facts are involved therein, they are being decided by this common order. For sake of convenience facts are being taken from ITA No.101 of 2018. 2. ITA No.101 of 2018 has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench Amritsar, dated 23.08.2017 in ITA No.427(Asr)/2016 for Assessment Year 2012- 2013. 3. ITA No.102 of 2018 has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench Amritsar, dated 18.09.2017 in ITA No.503(Asr)/2016 for Assessment Year 2013- 2014. 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2019 15:15:04 ::: ITA No.101 of 2018 (O&M) 3 4. ITA No.170 of 2018 has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench Amritsar, dated 23.08.2017 in ITA No.426(Asr)/2016 for Assessment Year 2011- 2012. 5. And ITA No.109 of 2018 has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench Amritsar, dated 23.08.2017 in ITA No.425(Asr)/2016 for Assessment Year 2010- 2011. 6. These appeals have been filed against orders of Tribunal allowing 30% depreciation to Assessee for buses which were owned by it and were being run on hire. 7. Assessee had claimed 30% depreciation in terms of New Appendix I (effective from assessment year 2006-2007 onwards), as per item No.III (3) (ii) Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in business of running them on hire. 8. Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation holding that this would be applicable only to such businesses who had taken buses on hire. Thus manner in which Assessing Officer read provision would be as follows :- 'Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis on hire used in business of running them.' 9. Assessee filed appeal and same having been allowed Revenue approached Tribunal. Tribunal having dismissed appeal of Revenue, it is before us in these appeals. 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2019 15:15:04 ::: ITA No.101 of 2018 (O&M) 4 bare perusal of item No.III (3) (ii) quoted above makes it clear that interpretation given by Commissioner and Tribunal is correct and natural while that sought to be given by Assessing Officer is most unnatural and really makes provision un-meaning because then it would imply that Assessee is using motor buses/ motor lorries and motor taxies in business of running. We asked learned counsel for appellant what business of running of buses, lorries and taxies would be? He is not in position to deny that business of running buses, lorries and taxies can only be for hire because in every other case such vehicles would be only utilized for use of assessee and not for business. Thus natural meaning of phrase would apply in present case and those Assessees who are running automobiles for hire would be liable to claim higher depreciation than those whose automobiles are meant for their use. 10. In circumstances of case, we are not able to find any fault with judgment and orders of Tribunal. No other question of law arises. 11. Since main cases have been dismissed, pending C.M. Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE July 22, 2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No 4 of 4 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Chandigarh v. Taj Travels Pvt. Ltd