9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the claim of depreciation on windmill machinery, specifically concerning the application of the rate of depreciation as per the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and the requirement of exercising an option for claiming higher depreciation rate. Details of the Judgment: The appeal by the Revenue was against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the claim of depreciation on windmill machinery. The Revenue contended that the assessee did not file an option to claim depreciation in accordance with the prescribed rules before the due date of filing the return of income. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the windmill machinery at a reduced rate since the machinery was put to use for less than 182 days. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim based on the rules, which specified a lower rate of depreciation if the option for higher depreciation was not exercised before the due date of filing the return. In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee argued that there was no specific form prescribed for exercising the option and that the depreciation statement filed along with the return should suffice. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relied on a previous Tribunal decision supporting the assessee's case. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) based on the previous Tribunal ruling, which emphasized that there was no specific form required for exercising the option. As the claim of depreciation was reflected in the books of account and the return of income was filed on time, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the allowance of higher depreciation claim to the assessee, concluding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the higher claim of depreciation. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
