Ita/537/2018 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Hasan Hajee And Co

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE J25TH DAY OF AUGUST 20271PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR. ILT.A. NO.537 OF JZO1 BEITWEEN 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVARA|MANGALURU-5/5001.MANGALURU-5/5001. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. WARD-1(1), PRESENT ADDRESS ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), C.R. BUILDING| ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-575001. _.. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV., FOR| SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,). AND M/S. HASAN HAJEE & CO.NO.20-8-678, NEAR OLDMUNICIPAL OFFICE, BUNDER|MANGALURU-5/75001. (BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M, ADV.,). .., RESPONDENT| THIS I.T.A. IS. FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OFI.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12.04.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.224/PAN/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2011-12, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW|STATED ABOVE. I]. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS|PASSED|BY|THE|INCOME-TAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL,BANGALORE IN ITA NO.224/PAN/2017 DATED 12.04.2018, |CONFIRMINGTHE|ORDER.OF|THE|APPELLATECOMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE|ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),|MANGALURU. III. PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS.HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS ANDCIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE [IN THE [INTEREST OJUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS.DAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has|been filed by the revenue against tne order dated|12.04.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of thisCourt on the following substantial question of law:| “Whether.Of)thefactsand|Inthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal ifs rightand CIT(A) are right in law in allowing claim ofexcess depreciation without properly considering that section 32(1)(ii) of the Act read with Rule 5°andAppendix1,Interalia,providesfor.depreciation|at30%InrespectOf|motorbuses/lorries/taxi used in the assessee’s Dusinessof running them on hire, wnereas in tne instantcase, the vehicles are used for assessee's ownbusiness and therefore, will not be eligible fornigner rate of depreciation?” 2. For the reasons assigned by us today in ITANo.532/2018, tne substantial question of law framed in thisappeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against therevenue. In the result, the appeal fails and is nereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE RV