The appellant claims depreciation at the rate of 30% on various types of cranes, viz. Telescopic Cranes, Rail for Tower Cranes, Tower Cranes, Mobile Tower Cranes, Crawler Cranes, Tower Crane Masts and Hydra Cranes. The Assessing Officer allowed the depreciation at 15%.  The CIT (A) held that   only the Hydra Cranes can be termed as “Motor Cranes” and accordingly allowed depreciation at the rate of 30%. The CIT(A), however, confirmed the disallowance on all other types of cranes. Appellate Tribunal also affirmed the order of CIT (A) .  On appeal  allowing the appeal the Court held that there is thumping evidence on record to indicate that the assessee is involved in the business of hiring the cranes. He might be using the cranes for his personal construction business too, but that does not disentitle him to claim higher depreciation once it is shown that the assessee is in the business of hiring the cranes. The assessee is entitle to depreciation at 30% . Order of  Tribunal is reversed . Referred Circulars and Notifications: Instruction No. 617, dated 13-9-1973 (AY . 2011-12