Itxa/2330/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3 Mumbai v. Reliance Industrial Infrastsructure Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2330 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai.....AppellantV/S.Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd....Respondent * * * * Mr. Vimal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistry, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. P.C. Tripathii/by. Mr. Raj Darak, Advocate for the respondent.i/by. Mr. Raj Darak, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- J.P. DEVADHAR, & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. 17 June, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the depreciation at 40% instead of 25% was allowable to the assessee on the vehicles given on hire, is the question raised in this Appeal.given on hire, is the question raised in this Appeal. 2. The ITAT after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. Gupta Global Exim P. Ltd reported in [2008] 305 ITR 132 (SC) and the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case came to the conclusion that the assessee was engaged in the business of giving vehicles on hire. Infact, the CIT(A) in its order dated 26[th] September, 2007 has recorded a finding of fact that in the assessee’s own case for the earlier order, the assessee had filed details of vehicles given on hire and copies of hire agreement entered into between the assesseee and the persons taking the vehicle on hire, were produced. The revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that the aforesaid evidence of the CIT(A) recorded in the earlier assessment orders was found to be incorrect or contrary to the fact on record. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal that the assessee was carrying on the business of giving the vehicles on hire and therefore entitled to higher rate of depreciation, cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J]