PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion of this Court : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 82,42,876 being the excess levy sugar price was not taxable in the hands of the assessee-company in the year under consideration ? ( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,80,098 on account of interest on excess levy price charged by the assessee ? ( 3 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow depreciation in the case of the trailers at the rate admissible in the case of transport vehicles even though the trailers are not motorized vehicles ? 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : 3. The reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. ( 4 ) THE assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of crystal sugar. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 82,42,876 being the excess levy sugar price was not taxable in the hands of the assessee-company in the year under consideration. It also claimed allowance of Rs. 5,80,098 on account of the interest on the excess price charged by the assessee. The aforesaid two claims were not accepted by the assessing authority but was accepted by the Tribunal on the basis of its finding recorded in the immediately preceding year 1975-76 in the case of the assessee itself. The assessee collected the aforesaid amount of Rs. 82,42,876 as excess amount over and above the one fixed by the government for sale of levy sugar. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not the owner of excess price collected by it and was also liable to refund it together with interest. A similar questions, as questions Nos. The assessee collected the aforesaid amount of Rs. 82,42,876 as excess amount over and above the one fixed by the government for sale of levy sugar. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not the owner of excess price collected by it and was also liable to refund it together with interest. A similar questions, as questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the present case, came up for consideration before this court in the case of the assessee-respondent itself in I. T. R. No. 18 of 1983 (CIT v. Dhampur sugar Mills Ltd. (No. 1) ), (2005 )194 CTR170 (All ), [2005 ]274 ITR340 (All )) for the assessment year 1974-75. This matter was examined in detail by this Court and it has come to the conclusion that the excess levy sugar price realised by the respondent did not form part of the trading receipt and consequently was not taxable in its hands. It has further held that under the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 1976, which came into effect with effect from April 1, 1976, the Government had created levy sugar price equalisation fund and the assessee was required to transfer the excess sugar price to the fund along with interest at the rate of 12. 5 per cent. per annum from the date of realisation of the amount to the date of its transfer. This Court has held that the excess levy sugar price was not taxable in the hands of the company. It has been further held that the amount of excess realisation along with interest is to be deposited within the specified period after the commencement of the aforesaid Act, with effect from April 1, 1976, which in the present case does not fall in the previous year/accounting year relevant to the assessment year in question. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter it is held that the amount of interest which the respondent was liable to pay on excess realisation of sugar price to the fund, cannot be said to have accrued during the relevant previous year. ( 6 ) RESPECTFULLY, following the aforesaid decision we answer the first question in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ( 7 ) SO far as question No. 3 is concerned, it is with regard to the allowability of depreciation on trailers. ( 6 ) RESPECTFULLY, following the aforesaid decision we answer the first question in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ( 7 ) SO far as question No. 3 is concerned, it is with regard to the allowability of depreciation on trailers. ( 8 ) "motor car" is defined under Section 2 (16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which reads as follows : 2. (16) motor car means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor-cycle or invalid carriage. ( 9 ) FROM the reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that the motor car means any motor vehicle other than mentioned in Section 2 (16 ). "motor vehicle" has been described in Section 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows : motor vehicle, means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in factory or in any other enclosed premises. ( 10 ) SECTION 2 (32) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, defines "trailer" to mean any vehicle other than a side-car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. ( 11 ) A conjoint reading of Sections 2 (16) and 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, shows that "motor car" includes a trailer. Therefore, within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 a trailer is a motor vehicle, although a trailer is an attachment, attached to a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of carrying goods or passengers. A trailer has been defined as any vehicle other than a side car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. We find that the relevant entry at that time in Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, was under the heading of "machinery and plant". The said entry reads as follows : c. (7) Motor cars, motor cycles, scooters and other mopeds (N. E. S. A.)--Rate of depreciation 20 per cent. We find that the relevant entry at that time in Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, was under the heading of "machinery and plant". The said entry reads as follows : c. (7) Motor cars, motor cycles, scooters and other mopeds (N. E. S. A.)--Rate of depreciation 20 per cent. ( 12 ) MOTOR buses, motor lorries, motor taxies, motor tractors (N. E. S. A.) are at serial No. D (9)under the heading "class of assets" in the depreciation Table--Appendix I and the rate of depreciation is 30 per cent. It may be stated here that a trailer is normally not attached to a motor car. Ordinarily it is attached to a tractor or a motor lorry. Therefore, it will go with the motor lorries. ( 13 ) FROM the above discussion, it is clear that the trailer is a motor car and is used for both the purposes, namely, carrying of passengers and goods. Therefore, it will fall within the category of motor lorries. The Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent. treating it to be a transport vehicle. ( 14 ) IN view of the above we answer question No. 3 in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Department. ( 15 ) IN the result, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 3 referred to us in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Department and question No. 2 in the negative, i. e. , in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs. . .