2016 (1) TMI 663 - AT - Income Tax

Entitlement for claim of depreciation - assessee claimed deprecation at 15% as per the provisions of Section 32(1) as well as additional depreciation at 20% as per the provisions of Section 32(1) (iia) on the electric installations - Held that - It is pertinent to note that the assessee company has submitted all the details related to the electrical installation and its co-relation with the business activities of the assessee. The said installation was within the premises of the assessee. The assessee company has installed induction furnace and the same was reflected in the details of addition of fixed assets from 1/4/2005 to 31/3/2006 the same was annexed to the written submission by the assessee and the date of induction furnace was installed on 25/4/2005.Though the security deposit was paid on 8/11/2004 the assessee has not claimed any depreciation in the earlier year. Therefore the assessee has rightly claimed the depreciation in the year under consideration. The CIT (A) has given a detailed finding to this aspect. Therefore the CIT (A) has rightly set aside the findings of the Assessing Officer and allowed the deprecation to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of depreciation on electrical installations.
2. Ownership rights over the assets for claiming depreciation.

Claim of Depreciation on Electrical Installations:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the claim of depreciation by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claim by the assessee on the grounds that the expenditure incurred prior to a certain date did not qualify for additional depreciation. The assessee argued that the investment made before the specified date also qualified for additional depreciation as it was the first year of production. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the documents submitted by the appellant and found that the appellant had made security deposits and advance payments for the installation of machinery for power connection. The installation process was completed, and the appellant was the sole beneficial owner of the power distribution machinery. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on various decisions to support the view that the term "ownership" should be interpreted broadly for the allowance of depreciation under the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the appellant was entitled to claim depreciation on the electrical installations.

Ownership Rights Over the Assets for Claiming Depreciation:
The Assessing Officer contended that the appellant did not acquire ownership rights over the electrical installations, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Ld. CIT(A) analyzed the details provided by the appellant and concluded that the appellant had the beneficial ownership of the power distribution machinery, allowing depreciation on the same. The Ld. DR argued that ownership lay with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, but the Ld. AR emphasized that the appellant had installed the induction furnace and claimed depreciation only on specific charges related to the system. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not claimed depreciation on the security deposit and had rightly claimed depreciation in the relevant year. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the claim of depreciation on electrical installations and the ownership rights over the assets, allowing the assessee to claim depreciation for the relevant year.