2016 (1) TMI 1252 - AT - Income Tax

Additional depreciation on the windmill - AO admittedly disallowed the claim on the ground that generation of electricity does not amount to manufacturing of article or thing - Held that - An identical situation was considered by the Madras High Court in VTM Ltd. (2009 (9) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) wherein held that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of textile goods and electricity generated by the windmill was used for captive consumption in manufacturing of textile goods. In those circumstances the Madras High Court found that the provisions of the Act does not state that setting up of new machinery or plant should have operational connectivity to the article or thing that was already being manufactured by the assessee. Activity of generation of power is manufacturing activity upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Claim of additional depreciation on windmill under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Claim of Additional Depreciation:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the claim of additional depreciation on a windmill for the assessment year 2006-07. The Departmental Representative argued that the windmill did not qualify for additional depreciation as it did not produce any article or thing, despite generating and consuming electricity. On the other hand, the assessee contended that the electricity generated by the windmill was used for captive consumption in their manufacturing activity, making them eligible for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act.

2. Judicial Interpretation:
The representative for the assessee cited the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. VTM Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 336, where a similar issue was considered. The High Court ruled that there was no requirement for operational connectivity between the machinery or plant and the article being manufactured by the assessee to claim additional depreciation. In line with this judgment, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed that the electricity generated by the windmill, used for captive consumption in manufacturing activities, qualified the assessee for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act.

3. Decision and Conclusion:
After considering the arguments from both sides and the relevant material on record, the Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, was entitled to claim additional depreciation on the windmill. The Tribunal concurred with the decision of the CIT(Appeals) and upheld the judgment of the Madras High Court, emphasizing that the electricity generated by the windmill for captive consumption in manufacturing activities met the criteria for claiming additional depreciation. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed, emphasizing the importance of judicial precedents in interpreting tax laws.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal aspects and reasoning behind the judgment, focusing on the interpretation of relevant provisions and judicial precedents to resolve the issue of claiming additional depreciation on a windmill under the Income-tax Act, 1961.