Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1704 - AT - Income TaxHigher rate of depreciation on windmill - Held that:- Cost is towards supply of electrical items of the windmill itself. The CIT(A) has observed that such cost in the installation of windmill has been found by the Tribunal in the case of Poonawala Finvest and Agro Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as an integral part of the windmill cost and therefore, found to be eligible for depreciation equivalent to that of the windmill. No decision to the contrary has been brought to our notice and therefore, following the precedent in the case of Poonawala Finvest and Agro Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (6) TMI 586 - ITAT PUNE ), we do not find any infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) which we hereby affirm. Cost relating to labour charges for erection and installation of windmill. Such expenditure forms integral part of cost of the windmill and therefore, there is no mistake on the part of the CIT(A) to have considered such expenditure as eligible for depreciation at 80%. Cost towards processing fee and MEDA application fee the CIT(A) apportioned such cost towards wind turbine and other eligible assets on one hand and of civil costs incurred, on the other hand. 60% of such cost have been apportioned towards wind turbine, etc., and have been held to be eligible for higher rate of depreciation at 80% and on the balance, the CIT(A) allowed depreciation as worked out by the Assessing Officer. In our view, the aforesaid apportionment made by the CIT(A) is fair and proper and does not require interference. Cost towards common power evacuation is concerned, there is no grievance of the Revenue as the action of the Assessing Officer on components and cost has been upheld. In this manner, we find no reason to interfere with the relief allowed by the CIT(A) with respect to depreciation on the cost of erection and commissioning of windmill in relation to windmill no. 1. Similar relief has been worked out by the CIT(A) with respect to windmill no. 2 which has been installed during the year under consideration. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the order of the CIT(A) is affirmed. - Decided against revenue
|