Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I Ludhiana Versus Ramesh Steels

2015 (5) TMI 1044 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee 80% on Windmill Project - Held that:- After considering the rival submissions we find that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has clearly held in case of CIT-I Vs. M/s Maxwel Inc. (2014 (12) TMI 1238 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) that contribution towards evacuation of power would constitute a capital asset relating to renewable energy and was entitled for depreciation @ 80% annually therefore, following this decision we decide this ground .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sources - Held that:- In one of the group cases in case of CIT-I, Ludhiana vs. M/s. Eastman Industries, Ludhiana (2010 (2) TMI 408 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ) such income was accepted as income from business.- Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 757/Chd/2014 - Dated:- 26-5-2015 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant: Sh. Manjit Singh For the Respondent: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal ORDER PER T.R.SO .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

preme Court in the case of Travancore Cochin Chemical Ltd. V/s 106 ITR 900 and allowing depreciation on contribution of Power Evacuation infrastructure Facility even though the assesee has no ownership of the asset, being only a contributor for availing the facility. ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the Power evacuation infrastructure as part of Wind Mill and as Renewable Energy Device whereas the AO has broug .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the transmission and distribution net work was actually plant and machinery which is eligible only for normal rates of depreciation @ 15% u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. iv) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,27,49,983/- paid on life of partners debited to profit and loss account as Keyman Insurance Premium disallowed by the Assessing Officer as non-business expenditure, by not deciding the issue on merits. v) Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rity for doing such business. Ground No. i to iii 3. The issue raised through these grounds is whether power evacuation facility would constitute a device for renewable energy and whether the assessee would be entitled to depreciation @ 80%. The AO held that this is not a part of renewable energy devices and depreciation was allowed only @ 7.5% (15% for the whole year). However on appeal the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the depreciation @40% (i.e., 80% for the whole year).

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of power would constitute a capital asset relating to renewable energy and was entitled for depreciation @ 80% annually therefore, following this decision we decide this ground against the Revenue. Ground No. iv 7. During the assessment proceedings it was noticed by AO that Assessee has paid a sum of ₹ 1,27,49,983/- on account of Insurance premium paid for life of the partners as Keyman in the firm. This expenditure was held to be not allowable. 8. On appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssions we find that Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in similar circumstances in the case of Laj Exports vs. DCIT (supra) by following the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. B.N. Exports (supra) has held that premium paid on insurance of Keyman is allowable expenditure. By following this decision we decide this issue against the Revenue. Ground No. v 12. After hearing both the parties we find that during the assessment proceedings AO noticed that a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hted the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of sister concerns of the assessee firm wherein on similar issue the decision has been in favour of the assessee that the income from money lending was to be treated as business income. In the circumstances the addition made by the AO is directed to be deleted." 14. Before us Ld. DR strongly supported the order of AO. 15. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in one of the group .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| 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