These are two bunches of appeals filed by two different assessees. First bunch of appeals by M/s. John Energy Ltd have been filed against the orders of learned the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Ahmedabad dated 12.10.2010 for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2008-09, and dated 11.04.2012 for Assessment Year 2009-10; and the second bunch of appeals by M/s. John Oil & Gas Limited have been filed against the order of learned the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Ahmedabad dated 12.10.2010 for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2004-05. Since all these appeals involve common and identical issues, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
2. First we take up the bunch of appeals filed by M/s. John Energy Ltd and IT(SS)A No. 42/Ahd/2011 for Assessment Year 2002-03 is being taken as the lead case for the purpose of narrating the facts.
3. In IT(SS)A No. 42/Ahd/2011 for Assessment Year 2002-03, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:—
1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 12.10.2010 for A.Y .2002-03 by CIT(A)-III, Abad upholding the disallowance of higher rate of depreciation on work-over rigs claimed by the appellant as heavy motor vehicle (Lorry) is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.
1.2 The Ld. CIT (A) has grievously erred in not considering fully and properly the explanation furnished and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned disallowance.
2.1 The Ld. C1T(A) has erred in not considering the contention of the appellant that the notice U/S.153A and the proceedings initiated there under were wholly illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction because the conditions were not fulfilled.
3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that work-over rigs were not heavy motor vehicle, i.e. motor lorry as per entry E/IA of Appendix-1 for depreciation allowance.
3.2 That in the facts and circumstances of case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have disallowed the higher depreciation claimed by the appellant in respect of work-over rigs treating as heavy motor vehicle considering the features, functions and nature of the work-over rigs.
3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that higher rate of deprecation was admissible only to those assesses who were engaged in the business of hiring of motor vehicles or motor lorries. The Ld. C1T (A) has failed to appreciate the features and functions work-over rigs and erred in relying upon the decision in the case of Popular Bore-Well Services and Super Drillers.
4.1 The Ld. C1T(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not allowing the additional ground of appeal relating to withdrawal of investment allowance reserves, though it was purely legal in nature and necessary facts relevant to it was on record.
4. The briefly stated facts are that a search action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was carried out in the group cases of John Group on 23.10.2007. Subsequently, for the assessment year under consideration, the assessment was framed u/s 153 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2009, whereby the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation on drilling Rigs @ 40% and adopted 25% rate of depreciation and thereby the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.44,15,650/- for the Assessment Year 2002-03. The assessee, being aggrieved by the assessment order, preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who, after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.
5. The only effective ground in the appeal is with regard to the disallowance of higher depreciation on Rigs. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal and confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the issue regarding the allowability of higher depreciation is no more res integra. He submitted that under the identical facts the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 50/122 Taxman 206, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that as per registration with the State Transport Authority, it is undisputed fact that the same is registered as Heavy Goods Vehicle. He drew our attention to the RTO Registration Certificate enclosed at page No.29-43 in the paper-book. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers (supra) has examined the law and allowed a higher depreciation to the crane. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, rendered in the case of ACIT v. Bothra Shipping Services, ITA Nos. 58-61/Kol/2013 dated 19.12.2014; wherein the issue of allowability of higher depreciation on payloaders, JCBs and 400V loaders was examined and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
6. On the contrary, ld. CIT-DR argued at length and submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). He further submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, rendered in the case of CIT v. Popular Borewell Service [1992] 194 ITR 12, has been rightly applied by the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the lorry and rig mounted on it are two different and separable unit. He submitted that the cost of Rig is higher than the lorry; therefore, he submitted that the assessee is not entitled for higher depreciation.
7. In rejoinder, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Rigs are registered with the State Transport Authority as Heavy Goods Vehicles and the definition of Heavy Goods Vehicle is to be applied as given in the Motor Vehicles Act, as per IT Rules. He further submitted that the bills so raised were in accordance with the kilometers. He submitted that it is not the case where the Rig once taken to one particular well would remain static. The vehicle is used for rectifying the defect etc. from one well to other well. He also drew our attention to the agreement entered into with ONGC which is enclosed at page No.9-13 of the paper-book. He also submitted that lorry and rig are inseparable because rig was an integral part of motor-lorry. As per contract, the assessee has to raise bill in respect of moving charges between locations including rig down and rig up. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel that the payment is made per kilometer. He drew our attention to page No.14 of the paper-book in this regard.
8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue in this appeal is required to be examined whether the assessee is entitled for higher depreciation as claimed. We find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal declining the claim of the assessee by observing as under:—
'5.2 From the above, it is clear that the main object of the company is not hiring of motor vehicles or motor lorries but to carry on the business of oil and gas exploration like drilling of Wells, conducting of seismic survey, of any oilfields including the activities like hiring of equipments and tools in project on turnkey basis. The higher rate of depreciation is allowed to only those assessees who are engaged in the business of hiring of motor vehicles or motor lorries. Undoubtedly, rigs are not motor lorries or motor vehicles. As stated by the AO in the assessment order that merely because a particular rig is mounted on a motor vehicle or on motor lorry, does not make the whole rig as a motor lorry or a motor vehicle. The case of the appellant is directly covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of BHOLARAM reported at 260 1TR 381. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
"The rig machinery does not fall in the category of motor buses and motor lorries. It is of course true that rate and compressor are amounted on a lorry used for drilling BOREWELLS. It consists of three distinct items namely, Rig, compressor and lorry. The rig and compressor do not form an integral part of the motor lorry. Merely because the leak and compressor are mounted on a lorry to facilitate their easy and convenient transport from one place to another, it cannot be said that the rig and compressor either constitute integral parts of a lorry by themselves or can be appropriately, called or known as lorry. Therefore, the rig and compressor used for drilling bore well though mounted on a lorry, cannot be held to fall under the category of motor lorry occurring in entry number III(ii)D(9) of part one of appendix 1 to the income-tax rules 1962. Thus, the assessee is not entitled to depreciation at a special rate of 30% in respect of such rigs and compressor."
5.3 It may be mentioned that the above judgement was pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court after considering the decisions of popular BOREWELL services 194 ITR 12 of Madras High Court and the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of super drillers 73 CTR 97. The decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court was relied upon by the appellant. In other words, as of now, there are two decisions of two different high courts namely Rajasthan High Court and Madras High Court in favour of the Department whereas there is not a single decision in favour of the appellant on this point directly. In the said decision of Popular Borewell, Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that:
"The rig and compressor mounted on a-lorry and used by the assessees for drilling bore-wells, consist of three distinct items, viz., rig, compressor and lorry, and the rig and compressor do not form an integral part of the motor lorry. Further, the rig and compressor are not necessary for operating a motor lorry. Again, the rig and compressor are mounted on a lorry for the purpose of conveniently transporting them from place to place for sinking bore-wells. Merely because the rig and compressor are mounted on a lorry to facilitate their easy and convenient transport from one place to another, it cannot be said that the rig and compressor either constitute integral parts of a lorry by themselves or can be appropriately called or known as a "lorry", as understood in common parlance. Therefore, the rig and compressor used for drilling bore-wells, though mounted on a lorry, cannot be held to fall under "motor lorry" occurring in entry-No. III(ii) D(9) of Part I of Appendix 1 to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee is not entitled to depreciation at the special rate of 30 per cent, in respect of such rigs and compressors.
From the definitions of "transport vehicle", "public service vehicle" and "goods vehicle", as they stood at the relevant time and as contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it follows that the "road transport vehicle" referred to in clause (b) of the proviso to section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would mean only those vehicles which are used for carrying passengers or goods. The rig and compressor mounted on a lorry cannot be treated as a road transport vehicle because, the rig and compressor is mounted on a lorry only for the purpose of transporting the equipment fixed on the lorry for sinking of bore-wells and not for carrying passengers or loading or unloading of goods. Hence, the rig and compressor mounted on a lorry and used for drilling bore-wells could not be considered as "road transport vehicle".
5.4 The reliance of the appellant on the decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of GUJCO carriers (256 ITR 50) (Guj) holding that a crane, is entitled for higher rate of depreciation and the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of income tax, cochin versus Gaylords constructions reported at 190 taxman 406 holding that a JCB machine is entitled for higher rate of depreciation is of no help to the appellant because the facts of the case are totally different in this case. Rather, there are direct judgements of two high courts against the appellant.
Therefore, in my considered view, the appellant is not entitled to higher rate of depreciation. As regards the contention of the appellant that since the lorries on which the rigs are mounted are registered with RIO as a f lorry, the rigs are themselves motor lorries and hence entitled to higher rate of depreciation , it may be stated that even though the lorries are registered as a motor vehicle with the RTO, a rig and compressor is not registered as a motor lorry. Further since that particular motor lorry which is registered with the RTO is not used for the purpose of hiring of motor buses or motor lorries and the appellant himself is not in the business of hiring of motor car, motor buses, motor lorries, as held by the Hon'ble Madras high Court in the case of popular BORE WELL services 194 ITR 12, higher rate of depreciation on such lorries cannot be allowed to the appellant. The contention of the-appellant that since in assessment year 2000-2001 and assessment year 2003-2004 the AO has allowed higher rate of depreciation in the order passed under section 143(3), he cannot take different view in subsequent assessment years, cannot be accepted because the AO has not referred to any of the above mentioned decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court and Rajasthan High Court as discussed above. Further each assessment year is separate and if the AO has wrongly accepted the claim of the appellant in one year, that does not mean that he should continue repeating the same mistakes in year after year.'
9. Before adverting to the rival contention, it would be appropriate to examine the relevant provisions of law:—
Depreciation.
'32. (1) In respect of depreciation of —
| (i) |
|
buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; |
(ii) |
|
know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, |
owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed -
| (i) |
|
in the case of assets of an undertaking engaged in generation or generation and distribution of power, such percentage on the actual cost thereof to the assessee as may be prescribed; |
(ii) |
|
in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed: |
Provided that no deduction shall be allowed under this clause in respect of -
| (a) |
|
any motor car manufactured outside India, where such motor car is acquired by the assessee after the 28th day of February, 1975 [but before the 1st day of April, 2001], unless it is used - |
(i) |
|
in a business of running it on hire for tourists ; or |
(ii) |
|
outside India in his business or profession in another country ; and |
(b) |
|
any machinery or plant if the actual cost thereof is allowed as a deduction in one or more years under an agreement entered into by the Central Government under section 42 : |
Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) [or clause (iia)], as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) [or clause (iia)], as the case may be :
Provided also that where an asset being commercial vehicle is acquired by the assessee on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 but before the 1st day of April, 1999 and is put to use before the 1st day of April, 1999 for the purposes of business or profession, the deduction in respect of such asset shall be allowed on such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this proviso, -
| (a) |
|
the expression "commercial vehicle" means "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "medium goods vehicle" and "medium passenger motor vehicle" but does not include "maxi-cab", "motor-cab", "tractor" and "road-roller" ; |
(b) |
|
the expressions "heavy goods vehicle" , "heavy passenger motor vehicle" , "light motor vehicle" , "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle" , "maxi-cab" , "motor-cab" , "tractor" and "road roller" shall have the meanings respectively as assigned to them in section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988): |
Provided also that, in respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1991, the deduction in relation to any block of assets under this clause shall, in the case of a company, be restricted to seventy-five per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage, on the written down value of such assets, prescribed under this Act immediately before the commencement of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991:
Provided also that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in [clause (xiii), clause (xiiib) and clause (xiv)] of section 47 or section 170 or to the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamation, or to the demerged company and the resulting company in the case of demerger, as the case may be, shall not exceed in any previous year the deduction calculated at the prescribed rates as if the succession or the amalgamation or the demerger, as the case may be, had not taken place, and such deduction shall be apportioned between the predecessor and the successor, or the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company, or the demerged company and the resulting company, as the case may be, in the ratio of the number of days for which the assets were used by them.
Explanation 1. - Where the business or profession of the assessee is carried on in a building not owned by him but in respect of which the assessee holds a lease or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing of any work in or in relation to, and by way of renovation or extension of, or improvement to, the building, then, the provisions of this clause shall apply as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee.
Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this sub-section "written down value of the block of assets" shall have the same meaning as in clause* (c) of sub-section† (6) of section 43.
Explanation 3. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "assets" shall mean -
(a) |
|
tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; |
(b) |
|
intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. |
Explanation 4. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "know-how" means any industrial information or technique likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or in the working of a mine, oil-well or other sources of mineral deposits (including searching for discovery or testing of deposits for the winning of access thereto).
Explanation 5. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income;
(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing [or in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power], a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii) :
Provided that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of -
| (A) |
any machinery or plant which, before its installation by the assessee, was used either within or outside India by any other person; or |
(B) |
any machinery or plant installed in any office premises or any residential accommodation, including accommodation in the nature of a guest-house; or |
(C) |
any office appliances or road transport vehicles; or |
(D) |
any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any one previous year; |
(iii) in the case of any building, machinery, plant or furniture in respect of which depreciation is claimed and allowed under clause (i) and which is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed in the previous year (other than the previous year in which it is first brought into use), the amount by which the moneys payable in respect of such building, machinery, plant or furniture, together with the amount of scrap value, if any, fall short of the written down value thereof :
Provided that such deficiency is actually written off in the books of the assessee.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause, -
| (1) |
"moneys payable" in respect of any building, machinery, plant or furniture includes - |
(a) |
any insurance, salvage or compensation moneys payable in respect thereof; |
(b) |
where the building, machinery, plant or furniture is sold, the price for which it is sold, |
so, however, that where the actual cost of a motor car is, in accordance with the proviso to clause (1) of section 43, taken to be twenty-five thousand rupees, the moneys payable in respect of such motor car shall be taken to be a sum which bears to the amount for which the motor car is sold or, as the case may be, the amount of any insurance, salvage or compensation moneys payable in respect thereof (including the amount of scrap value, if any) the same proportion as the amount of twenty-five thousand rupees bears to the actual cost of the motor car to the assessee as it would have been computed before applying the said proviso;
(2) "sold" includes a transfer by way of exchange or a compulsory acquisition under any law for the time being in force but does not include a transfer, in a scheme of amalgamation, of any asset by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company where the amalgamated company is [an Indian company or in a scheme of amalgamation of a banking company, as referred to in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) with a banking institution as referred to in sub-section (15) of section 45 of the said Act, sanctioned and brought into force by the Central Government under sub-section (7) of section 45 of that Act, of any asset by the banking company to the banking institution.
(iv) [***]
(v) [***]
(vi) [***]
(1A) [***]
(2) Where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect cannot be given to any allowance under sub-section (1) in any previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year, or owing to the profits or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if there is no such allowance for that previous year, be deemed to be the allowance for that previous year, and so on for the succeeding previous years.'
10. From the above, it is evident that as per Explanation (b) to the proviso to Section 32, the expression "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "maxi-cab", "motor- cab", "tractor" and "road-roller" shall have the meanings respectively as assigned to them in Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is not disputed that Rig, as per Motor Vehicle Act, falls under the category of Heavy Goods Vehicle and has been so registered by the State Transport Authority in the registration certificate. From the Certificate issued by the Regional Transport Office, Mehsana, which is enclosed at page no. 29 of the paper-book, it is evident that the type of body is HGV Drilling Rig : Make-Ashok Leyland. Therefore, the claim is with regard to heavy goods vehicles, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers (supra) has held that lorry or truck would, therefore, mean not only any motor vehicle designed to carry freight or goods but also to perform special services like fire fighting. Fire engine also called fire truck is a self-propelled mobile piece of equipment used in fire fighting. The Hon'ble Court noted in the above case that the assessee had claimed depreciation at 40 per cent, on the crane registered by it with the RTO as a heavy goods vehicle. It was a mobile crane and according to the assessee, it was given on hire. These facts were mentioned in the statement of account filed along with the assessee's return. The Hon'ble Court further observed that the controversy centres around the question whether mobile crane registered as a heavy motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder with the RTO would fall within the expression "motor lorries" contained in item No. IIIE(1A) of Appendix I of the said Rules. The Hon'ble Court observed that a mobile crane mounted on a truck constitutes a single unit known as a "truck crane" which is adapted for use upon roads for special services. The truck on which the crane is mounted is constructed and adapted specially to carry the crane. It is further observed that there can be other special services to be performed by motor vehicles designed for such services. Thus, a lorry, i.e., truck adapted or designed to carry a crane is meant for special services of lifting load, moving it side by side, rotating it or moving it horizontally. Most industrial trucks permit mechanized pick-up and deposit of the loads, eliminating manual work in lifting as well as transporting. The crane truck is a portable boom crane mounted on an industrial truck. It may be used with hooks, grabs, and slings for bundled or coiled material, industrial trucks which would also come within the expression "motor lorries" are described as follows in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court further observed that the motor vehicles like fire trucks, fork lift trucks and crane trucks which are designed for special services fall within the category of "motor trucks". The Hon'ble Court, after examining the factual and legal position, came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled for higher rate of depreciation.
11. We find that ld. CIT(A) has applied the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of Popular Borewell Service (supra). However, in our considered view, the CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the claim by not following the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers (supra) wherein it was held as under:—
'Held accordingly, that the mobile crane of the assessee which admittedly was registered as a heavy motor vehicle, would clearly fall within the expression "motor lorries" which means motor trucks) in entry IIIE(1A) of the Table in Appendix I under rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, since it was used by the assessee in its business of running the crane on hire. The assessee was entitled to depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent on the mobile crane.'
In the case in hand also, as per the photograph given by the assessee, it is observed that the workover/servicing mobile Rigs specifically designed for such purpose. Moreover, as per proforma invoice enclosed at Page Nos. 24-28, it is evident that it pertains to 100 ton workover/servicing mobile rig. Therefore, the contention that the workover rig remains static is not correct. It is also noteworthy that the assessee-company has raised invoices per kilometer in respect of the movement of the Rig from one place to another. It is not the case that where the bill has been raised solely on the basis of static operations. As per ld. CIT(A) that the depreciation at higher rate would be available if crane is given on hire in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers(supra) but it would not be available to workover mobile rig. We are unable to accept this reasoning as in both the cases there is mobility from place to another and both are designed for rendering specific services. The fact that State Transport Authority has registered the workover/servicing mobile rig under the category Heavy Goods Vehicle Drilling Rig. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers (supra), after examining the functions etc., held that motor vehicles like fire trucks, fork lift trucks and crane trucks which are designed for special services fall within the category of "Motor Trucks" (also called "Motor Lorries"). The Hon'ble Andra Pradesh High Court has allowed higher rate of depreciation on Rig in the case of CIT v. Super Drills [1988] 174 ITR 640/38 Taxman 5. However, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case ofPopular Borewell Service (supra) has taken a different view. Hence, there are conflicting views of the Hon'ble Andra Pradesh High Court and the Madras High Court. Therefore, two views are possible; hence the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be adopted in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.[1973] 88 ITR 192. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. Therefore, respectfully following the same we hereby direct the Assessing Officer to allow higher depreciation @ 40% on Rigs as claimed by the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
12. In the appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2009-10 vide IT(SS)A Nos. 43 to 48/Ahd/2011 & ITA No. 1348/Ahd/2012, identical grounds are raised. Therefore, for the detailed discussion in IT(SS)A No. 42 to 48/Ahd/2011 for Assessment Year 2002-03, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2009-10 are also allowed.
13. Now, we take-up the bunch of appeals filed by M/s. John Oil & Gas Limited vide IT(SS)A Nos. 49 to 51/Ahd/2011 for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2004-05. In all these appeals also, common grounds are raised, and therefore, all these appeals were heard together. In this bunch of appeals also the only effective ground is with regard to the disallowance of higher depreciation on Rigs. These grounds are identical to the grounds of assessee in the case of M/s. John Energy Ltd vide IT(SS)A No. 42 to 48/Ahd/2011 for Assessment Year 2002-03. Therefore, for the detailed discussion in the case of M/s. John Energy Ltd vide IT(SS)A No. 42 to 12. 48/Ahd/2011 for Assessment Year 2002-03 (supra), we allow higher depreciation @ 40% on Rigs as claimed by the assessee. Thus, all the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2004-05 are allowed.
14. In the combined result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee for the years under consideration are allowed.