Bookmarks   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login  
Tax Management India .com   
   TMI - Tax Management India. Com   
Whether vessels/ships that are afloat are not goods and immovable property? - CESTAT says Yes - What about GST on supply of floating ship?    *    Services provided to the Govt/ local authority with regard to water supply - exemption will include activity of construction of tube wells    *    determination of assessable value for job work transaction    *    Cabinet approves Agreement and the Protocol between India and Cyprus for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion    *    Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI    *    Boarding and Rummaging of vessels, aircrafts and vehicles    *    service tax payament-reg    *    New Issue / query = Export against the INR Purchase Order    *    Education Cess / Secondary & Higher Education Cess    *    Seeks to further amend Notification No. 96/2008-Customs dated 13.08.2008 so as to include 'Republic of Guinea-Bissau' in the list of countries eligible for preferential tariff under the said notification    *    Amends Notification No.22/2003-Central Excise dated 31.3.2003    *    Regarding Filing of returns through digital signature    *    Union Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitley to inaugurate the Conference on “International Arbitration in BRICS: Challenges, Opportunities and Road ahead” on August 27, 2016 in the national capital;    *    Where supply of goods without transfer to title has to be treated as service, whether on importation of such services, customs duty and GST would be levied simultaneously?    *    TAXABLE EVENT UNDER GST    *    ABCD of MSME Credit (Shri S. S. Mundra, Deputy Governor – August 23, 2016 – at the 2nd CII National Conference on MSME Funding held in New Delhi)    *    RBI Reference Rate for US $    *    Government Approves Seven (7) Proposals of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)    *    Cenvat Credit - It is neither possible nor practical for any service recipient to verify the fact of payment of service tax by the service provider. Remedy of the Revenue lies at the hands of the service provider and not at the hands of the service recipient. - Tri    *    Levy of penalty - the assesse's stand that they were under a bonafide belief that no tax liability would fall upon them as the same stands discharged by the sub-contractor is required to be appreciated in which case, the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 would get invoked – no penalty - Tri    *    Cenvat credit - availed input services credit without payment of value of input service and service tax on such service to the provider of services - violation of Sub Rule (7) of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - If payment is made later, credit will be eligible - however, interest liability to be computed, if any. - Tri    *    Classification of soyabean oil – by-product in the course of manufacture of lecithin – classifiable under 15071000 as crude oil, whether or not degummed - Tri
Article Section
Home Articles Income Tax - Direct Tax Code - DTC Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN
← Previous Next →

CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOR THE NEW WINDMILLS INSTALLED UNDER SECTION 32(1) (iia) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Submit New Article

Discuss this article

CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOR THE NEW WINDMILLS INSTALLED UNDER SECTION 32(1) (iia) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
By: Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN
April 12, 2010
  • Article

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ('Act' for short) provides that in the case of new machinery of plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2002, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, a further sum equal to fifteen per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii). Such further deduction of fifteen per cent shall be allowed to-

* a new industrial undertaking during any previous year in which such undertaking begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing on or after the 1st day of April, 2002; or

* any industrial undertaking existing before the 1st day of April, 2002, during any previous year in which it achieves the substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than ten per cent.

As far as application of Sec.32 (1)(iia) of the Act is concerned, what is required to be satisfied in order to claim the additional depreciation is that the setting up of a new machinery or plant should have been acquired and installed after March 31, 2002 by an assessee, who was already engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing.   The said provision does not state that the setting up of a new machinery or plant, which was acquired and installed after March 31, 2002, should have any operational connectivity to the article or thing that was already being manufactured by assessee. 

The above view has been confirmed by the Madras High Court in two cases. In 'Commissioner of Income Tax V. Hi Tech Arai Ltd.,' - (2010) 321 ITR 477 (Mad) the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of oil seeds, moulded rubber parts, red value assemblies apart from generation of power. The assessee has set up two wind mills in addition to the already existing four wind mills and thereby increased its power generation capacity by above 50 per cent.   The assessee claimed additional depreciation for the new wind mills. 

The Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee is basically generating the electricity by wind mills for its own consumption and it is not the business of the assessee. Therefore the assessee is not entitled for additional depreciation for wind mills, under Section 32(1)(iia). The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that it is not essential that the assessee is in the business of generation of electricity.   But, since the assessee is generating the electricity by windmills, the conditions of the law are fulfilled for claiming additional depreciation. It is an undisputed fact that after addition of two units during the period relevant to the assessment year, the capacity of generation of power through wind mills was enhanced by 50 per cent. 

The Revenue being failed in the Appellate tribunal also came to High Court raising the following substantial questions of law:

* Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation on the purchase of wind mills even though the main business of the assessee is not producing or generating of electricity?

* Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing additional depreciation under Section 32 (1) (iia) wind mill amounting to Rs.33,29,562/- and Rs.37,28,824/- respectively for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 was proper?

* Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering the judgment of a co-ordinate Chennai Bench passed in the case of 'Texmo Industries' which is binding on it and in favor of the Revenue;

* Whether the new machinery or plant purchased is eligible for additional depreciation or only those plants and machinery purchased and used in its main business the exemption contemplated under Section 32(1) (iia) is to be given?

The Revenue contended the following:

* The Tribunal under similar circumstances earlier disallowed the additional depreciation claimed under Section 32 (1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, whereas by the impugned order, the Tribunal has taken a diametrically opposite view and on this ground itself the order is liable to be set aside;

* The additional depreciation was claimed on the setting up of wind mills for generation of power and inasmuch as the assessee is only engaged in the manufacture of oil seeds etc., the setting of a wind mill has absolutely no connection for the manufacture of oil seeds, which is a power industry and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim the additional depreciation as allowed under section 32 (1) (iia) of theAct;

The High Court held that as follows:

* As far as the first contention is concerned, when the Tribunal by the impugned order has applied section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, to the facts involved in the case of the assessee and has found that the assessee is entitled for the additional depreciation claimed under the said provision, it cannot be held that simply because a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had earlier taken a different view, the Tribunal on this occasion also ought to have followed the same. When the Tribunal has applied the law correctly in the impugned order, there is no gainsaying that there was an earlier order by the co-ordinate Bench and therefore, for that reason, this time also the Tribunal should have blindly followed its own earlier decision even if such earlier decision did not reflect the correct position of the law.

* The provisions of section 32 (1)(iia) does not state that the setting up of a new machinery or plant, which was acquired and installed after March 31, 2002, should have any operational connectivity to the article or thing that was already being manufactured by the assessee. Therefore the contention that the setting up of a wind mill has nothing to do with the power industry, namely, manufacture of oil seeds, etc., is totally not germane to the specific provision contained in section 32 (1) (iia) of the Act.

In 'Commissioner of Income Tax V. Texmo Precision Castings' - (2010) 321 ITR 481 (Mad) the assessee is carrying on the business of investment castings for export and also generating and selling electricity from the wind mill. During the assessment year the Assessing Officer disallowed the additional depreciation claim made by the assessee on the view that the assessee was carrying on the business of manufacturing investment castings. The investment castings are products which are produced with high precision using lost wax process and the same was used in various applications like orthopedic implements, tin and can openers, water pipe joints etc., and installation of new wind mill has not in any way increased the installed capacity of the assessee's plants and accordingly disallowed the additional depreciation. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) also disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the investment in the windmills is clearly one for the purpose of saving electricity charges and their installation has in no way increased the installed capacity of the investment casting manufacturing business.

The Tribunal relied on its own decision in the case of 'Hi-Tech Arai Ltd.,' and gave relief the assessee. The Revenue filed appeal before the High Court. The High Court held that the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue in the 'Hi-Tech Arai Ltd.,' (supra) judgment, it did not require no interference of the impugned order. 

 

By: Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN - April 12, 2010

 

Discussions to this article

 

I think provisions of Sec.32(1)(iia) are not applicable to assessees falling/covered under Sec.32(1)(i)if the assessee is an undertaking engaed in generation/distribution of Power/electricity as an independent unit and not as a captive unit of the assesee. The sec.32(1)(iia) clearly mentions that the add. dep. is available to assesee claiming dep. U/s 32(1)(ii).Pl.Give your opinion.

By: Mukesh Dua
Dated: 15/04/2010

 
 
 

Discuss this article

 


 

← Previous Next →
what is new what is new

Advanced Search

Latest Updates

Forum

Featured

Experts

More Options

Communication




|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version