9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided 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. - ITA No. 821 & 1127/Chd/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2013 - Shri T. R. Sood, A.M And Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J. S. Nagar For the Respondent : Shri Ashwani Kumar ORDER Per T. R. Sood, A.M. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order dated 10.5.2012 of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana. The appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this common order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hd/2012. 7 After considering the rival submissions we find that identical issue came up for consideration of the Tribunal in case of ACIT V. Eastman Impex, Ludhiana, ITAs No. 819 820/Chd/2012 and the same has been adjournment vide para 10 which is as under: " 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on record. In the present case it is noticed that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts involved in the case of Trumac Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Vs. ITO(supra) wherein vide order dated 27.06.2008 relevant finding given by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench "I" in para 21 to 24 read as under: "21. Coming to the next item, i.e. disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 42,50,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd., reported in 122 ITR 995 (Bom). 23. Learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee is now improving the method of transaction by installing new machineries, without which also the windmill will continue to operate. This cannot be treated as an integral part of the windmill as such. This has independent standing. Assessee 's windmill worked even without these machineries. As such ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the orders of the revenue authorities may be upheld. 24. Considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the assessee's appeal is to be allowed on merit. Firstly, it is to be seen that these machineries had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A)." Following the above, we find nothing wrong in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we confirm the same. 8 Second issue is regarding allowance of depreciation on electricity line for transmission of metering. 9 After hearing both the parties we find that the assessee had incurred some expenditure for installation of transmission line and the same was added to the cost of wind mill and thus claimed depreciation @ 80%. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the same could not be called Renewal Energy device and therefore, was allowed @ 15%. 10 On appeal the ld. CIT(A) allowed the depreciation @ 80% on the same logic as in case of Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities. 11 Before us, the ld. DR for the revenue s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to claim excessive depreciation. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. " 16 Before us, the ld. DR for the revenue submitted that once it was held that machinery was used for less than 180 days then if the assessee was eligible for depreciation at 80% only 50% of such eligible depreciation could have been granted. 17 On the other hand, the ld. counsel of the assessee fairly conceded that since the machines have been used only for 180 days therefore, depreciation can be granted at 50% on normal depreciation. 18 After considering the rival submissions we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not disc used this issue and since it has been admitted that Power Evacuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
