2017 (5) TMI 1580 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of depreciation on Morrison rope dyeing machine - boiler as a part of dyeing machine - whether machine installed by the appellant company is not an energy saving device? - Held that - Before proceeding with the matter it will be out of place to mention that the boiler is the main part of the dying machine to increase the efficiency and the energy level and boiler being a part of effective machinery which converts water into steam at a lower efficiency of the energy In view of the judgment in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-2 vs. Vippy Solvex Products Ltd. (2007 (3) TMI 746 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT) the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be accepted modified that the boiler is a part of dyeing machine and any part which is required in dying process is required to be granted 100% depreciation - All the authorities have seriously committed the error. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation claim by the appellant.
2. Classification of the machine as an energy-saving device.
3. Consideration of the certificate issued by the manufacturing company.
4. Automatic switch-off facility of the machine as an energy-saving device.
5. Treatment of the boiler as part of a composite unit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Depreciation Claim by the Appellant:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision to deny 100% depreciation on certain items of Plant & Machinery, specifically dyeing machines, and instead allow only 25% depreciation. The Tribunal's decision was based on the classification of the dyeing machine as not falling under the category of "energy-saving devices" as per Income Tax Rules. The appellant argued that the dyeing machine, being a modern, energy-efficient device with automatic monitoring and switch-off capabilities, should qualify for 100% depreciation. The High Court referred to precedents, including decisions from the Orissa and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which supported the view that certain machinery integral to energy-saving processes should be eligible for higher depreciation rates.

2. Classification of the Machine as an Energy-Saving Device:
The Tribunal held that the machine installed by the appellant was not an energy-saving device, which was a key factor in denying 100% depreciation. The appellant contended that the dyeing machine, with its energy-efficient features, should be classified as an energy-saving device. The High Court examined the detailed submissions and expert opinions, including references to specific rules and previous judgments that supported the classification of such machinery as energy-saving devices.

3. Consideration of the Certificate Issued by the Manufacturing Company:
The appellant presented a certificate from the manufacturing company stating that the dyeing machine was thermally efficient and an energy-saving device. The Tribunal did not consider this certificate sufficient to classify the machine as an energy-saving device. The High Court reviewed the certificate and other supporting documents, emphasizing the need to consider such expert opinions in determining the eligibility for higher depreciation.

4. Automatic Switch-off Facility of the Machine as an Energy-Saving Device:
The appellant argued that the automatic switch-off facility of the dyeing machine contributed to its classification as an energy-saving device. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that merely having an auto-cut feature did not qualify the machine as an energy-saving device. The High Court, however, highlighted the importance of such features in energy conservation and considered them relevant in the context of granting higher depreciation.

5. Treatment of the Boiler as Part of a Composite Unit:
The appellant contended that the boiler, being integral to the dyeing process, should be considered part of the composite unit and eligible for 100% depreciation. The Tribunal allowed 100% depreciation only on the boiler, not on the entire dyeing machinery. The High Court referred to previous judgments, including those from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which supported the view that components integral to a larger energy-saving system should be treated as a composite unit for depreciation purposes.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal and other authorities had erred in their judgment. It accepted the appellant's argument that the boiler and dyeing machine, being integral parts of an energy-saving process, should be granted 100% depreciation. The judgment was modified to reflect this view, and the issue was decided in favor of the appellant, with all appeals disposed of accordingly.