9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1066 - HC - Income TaxAdditional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) relating to the windmill installed - Whether generation of electricity should be equated to the term manufacturing or production of article or thing ? - HELD THAT - It is settled law that for the purpose of claiming additional depreciation for manufacture or production of new item under section 32(1)(iia), the basic requirement is that it should be acquired or installed after 31.03.2002. Admittedly, the appellant acquired the windmill after 31.03.2002. Taking note of all this court is of the opinion that the appellate authority has correctly set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. Whereas, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the said order of the appellate authority, by order dated 30.03.2012 and hence, the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the assessing officer to recompute the depreciation allowable after duly allowing the claim made by the appellant for additional depreciation, in addition to the depreciation already allowed. Such order be passed by the assessing officer, on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Issues:
- Disallowance of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act on windmill. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a Tax Case Appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disallowing the claim for additional depreciation on a windmill. 2. The appellant initially declared total income and claimed additional depreciation on the windmill for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessing officer disallowed the claim, but the appellate authority allowed it based on previous judicial decisions. However, the Tribunal disallowed the claim stating the appellant was not engaged in manufacturing or production, hence not entitled to additional depreciation. 3. The substantial questions of law admitted by the court were related to the correctness of disallowing the claim of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act concerning the windmill installed by the appellant. 4. The court considered the arguments of both sides and examined the records to determine the issue of disallowance of additional depreciation on the windmill. 5. The core issue was the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.60,59,600 on the windmill under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 6. The court referred to a previous judgment involving a similar issue and concluded that the appellant, engaged in the textile business, was entitled to claim additional depreciation for the windmill installation as it was acquired and installed after the specified date. 7. The court reiterated the requirement for claiming additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) and emphasized that the windmill acquisition date and the separate business division justified the appellant's claim. The Tribunal's decision to disallow the claim was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the assessing officer for re-computation. 8. The court held that the appellate authority correctly set aside the assessment order, and the Tribunal's decision to set aside the appellate authority's order was erroneous. The court directed the assessing officer to recompute the depreciation allowable after allowing the appellant's claim for additional depreciation. 9. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with no costs, and the assessing officer was instructed to recompute the depreciation within a specified timeframe, following the court's judgment.
|
