IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year :30/06/2025 Raja Construction Vs. DCIT-27(3)

Shop No.2, Kailash 423, Vashi Railway Mahal Station Complex R.B. Mehta Marg Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Ghatkopar East Mumbai- 400 077 PAN/GIR No.AAAFR0273Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent Assessee by Shri Gaurav Bansal Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kousuri, Sr.

DR Date of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/06/2025 / O R D E R आदेश PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 07/03/2025 passed by Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2015-16.

2. In various grounds of appeal assessee has only challenged disallowance of claim of depreciation on „cranes‟ which was claimed at 30% by the assessee and reduced to 15% by the ld.

AO.

3. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of hiring of cranes and has been showing the income under the head „income from business and profession‟. The assessee is receiving rental income from the business of hiring of cranes and has let out cranes on hire to different parties which is mainly used for lifting and moving of heavy construction goods. Assessee had declared total hire charges at Rs.2,11,17,780/- and after claiming various expenses, had shown net loss for Rs.1,36,41,797/-. Ld. AO noted that major expenses constituted depreciation amounting to Rs.1,82,00,000/- claimed for cranes. Ld. AO noted that assessee has claimed depreciation @30% on crane, however, it does not fall in the category of “running of commercial vehicles on hire” for any kind of transportation business and therefore, assessee is only entitled for depreciation @15% and disallowed excess claim of Rs.91,00,000/-.

4. Ld. First Appellate Authority held that cranes are not eligible for higher depreciation @30% admissible to commercial vehicles and accordingly, he upheld the order of the ld.AO.

5. We have heard both the parties and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order. Before us it had been stated that this issue now stands covered by the series of decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prasad Multi Services (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 423 ITR 542 and in the case of Gujco Carriers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 256 ITR 50 were also relied upon the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. No.1781/Mum/2015. The main case of the ld. AO and ld. CIT (A) is that cranes “do not fall within the ambit of commercial vehicle, motor lorries, motor taxis etc., so as to enable assessee to claim depreciation @30%”. We find that exact same issue has been decided by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prasad Multi Services (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT (supra)

wherein the following question was involved.

“Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Respondent in limiting allowance of depreciation to 15% as against the claim at the rate of 30% on various types of cranes used in hiring business under section 32 of the Income-

tax Act, 1961.”

6. The Hon‟ble Court have referred to their earlier decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Guco Carriers (supra) wherein, this issue has been discussed in detail which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced hereunder:-

35.

“ We may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Gujco Carriers (supra), on which the assessee has placed strong reliance. The issue before this Court in Gujco Carriers (supra) was that the assessee had purchased a mobile crane and claimed depreciation at 40% thereon stating that it was being used in the business of running it on hire and so it will fall under entry No. IIIE(1A) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This Court, after