Ita/167/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.c.v. Bhanumurthy Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATLBD THIS THE 1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 PRESENT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR| $ITA No.167/2015 (TIT) BETWEEN: 1.)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD.BANGALORE, 2DEBPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -10(1)BANGALORE.. APPELLANTS (BY SRI EITSANMATHI, ADV) AN]: SHRI C V BHANUMURTHY REDDY. No.8, 14 MAIN ROADVENKATEBESHWARA LAYOUBANGALORE -560 034PAN : ABW PB 5765 FRESPONDENT THIS JTA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF.INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED)21.11.2014 PASSED IN ITA No.261/BANG/2014 FOR THEASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE)FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER.QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE|HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE)APPELLATEK ORDER DATED 21.11.2014 PASSED BY THEITAT, A’ BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGSNo.ITA No.261/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THIS [TA COMING ON BOR ADMISSION THIS|DAY,VINEET SABRAN,, |.DELIVERED THER KFOLLOWING JUDGMENT The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 21.11.2014passed by the Tribunal, whereby the benefit of 30% depreciation hasbeen granted to the assessee for the vehicles being used forcommercial purpose of shifting the solid waste on behalf of theBruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike(for short ‘BBMP’),which was.under a contract granted in his favour. The Tribunal, afterconsidering the relevant provision of law as well as the circular of theCBDT, held as under: oe In the present case, the assessee has been transportingthe sola waste of municipality on hire. Lhus, the verynature of the assessee’s business 1s such which bring himin the ambit of the circular. It 1s not the case where a person 1s running any consultancy firm and used a motor|carfor himself. Here the vehicles are usedfor transporting|the gooas ofthird concern by virtue ofa contract. There ts|a commercial exploitation of the vehicles for transporting|the goods on Ire. Iherefore, the assessee 1s entitled for|higher rate ofdepreciation.” Challenging the said order, this appeal has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants andperused the records, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the otder of the Itibunal and thus no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Coutt. bkm Sd/- JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE