2013 (8) TMI 279 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities - depreciation on electricity line for transmission of metering. - nature contribution made to GEDA - CIT allowed depreciation @ 80% - Held that - machineries had no independent functioning as such. Merely because it improves the working system or controlling / monitoring system, it cannot be treated as an independent machinery and not part of the integrated machinery - payment made for overhead service line, which remained the property of Electricity Board, is allowable as revenue expenditure - Following decision of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 1979 (10) TMI 68 - BOMBAY High Court - Decided against Revenue. Depreciation on electricity line for transmission of metering - CIT allowed depreciation @ 80% - Held that - Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities was used for less than 180 days, depreciation can be granted at only 40% (i.e. 50% of the normal depreciation of 80%) - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowance of depreciation @ 80% on the contribution made by the assessee for use of Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities.
2. Allowance of depreciation on electricity line for transmission of metering.
3. Allowing depreciation at 80% because equipment was used for only 180 days.

Issue 1:
The first issue pertains to the allowance of depreciation at 80% on the contribution made by the assessee for the utilization of Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation, contending that the assessee was not the owner of the facility, and it was not a Renewable Energy device. However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed depreciation at 80%, emphasizing the essential role of the Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities for the windmill to generate electricity for customers. The Tribunal referenced a similar case and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that the Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities, in conjunction with the windmill, determined the true character, justifying the depreciation at 80%.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolves around the allowance of depreciation on the electricity line used for metering transmission. The Assessing Officer granted depreciation at 15%, arguing that it did not qualify as a Renewable Energy device. Conversely, the ld. CIT(A) allowed depreciation at 80%, aligning with the reasoning applied to the Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities. The Tribunal, citing a previous case, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no fault in the approach taken.

Issue 3:
The final issue concerns the allowance of depreciation at 80% due to the equipment's partial usage for 180 days. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation, considering the expenditure as capital and not part of the block of renewable energy devices. The officer added back the disallowed amount to the assessee's income. The Tribunal deliberated on the usage duration and agreed that depreciation should be granted at 40% due to the equipment being used for less than 180 days. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, dismissing one and partly allowing another, based on the specific circumstances and usage duration of the equipment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of depreciation allowance for Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities, electricity line for metering transmission, and equipment usage duration comprehensively, providing detailed reasoning and referencing relevant precedents to support the decisions made.