2013 (1) TMI 792 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of depreciation on wind mills - Denial of rate of depreciation @80% - Held that - Assessee has incurred the expenditure on foundation/civil work and erection and commissioning work and claimed depreciation at 80% on this - cost of foundation is the integral part of the wind mill and same is eligible for depreciation at the rate which is applicable to the wind mill - Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the disallowance of depreciation on wind mills and vehicle for assessment year 2008-09.

Analysis:
1. Depreciation on Wind Mills:
- The appellant contested the disallowance of depreciation on wind mills amounting to Rs. 9,57,518, claiming it was illegal and without jurisdiction.
- The Assessing Officer (A.O.) argued that depreciation at 80% on the total cost of wind mills for civil work and erection cannot be allowed.
- The A.O. differentiated between depreciation rates for different components like civil work, erection, and machinery, disallowing excess depreciation claimed in the previous assessment year.
- The appellant cited a Tribunal order for the A.Y. 2007-08, where depreciation at 80% on foundation, erection, and installation cost of wind mills was allowed.
- The Tribunal held that foundation and erection costs are integral to wind mills and eligible for depreciation at rates applicable to wind mills.
- The Tribunal affirmed that certain components of windmill costs qualify for higher depreciation rates as integral parts of the windmill.
- Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the A.O.'s disallowance of depreciation, allowing the appeal.

2. Depreciation on Vehicle:
- The appellant also raised concerns regarding the rejection of depreciation at 80% for a vehicle in the assessment year 2008-09, despite it being allowed for the second half of the previous assessment year.
- The appellant argued that no change in circumstances warranted the rejection of the depreciation claim for the vehicle.
- However, detailed arguments and reasoning specific to the vehicle depreciation issue were not provided in the summarized judgment.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal against the disallowance of depreciation on wind mills for the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal based its decision on the precedent set in a previous Tribunal order for the A.Y. 2007-08, emphasizing the integral nature of foundation and erection costs to wind mills. The disallowance of excess depreciation and the eligibility of certain components for higher depreciation rates were key factors in the Tribunal's decision. The judgment did not provide detailed arguments or outcomes specific to the vehicle depreciation issue raised by the appellant.