9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose control of plant and machinery was with the GEB. Merely because control of plant and machinery of the windmill was with GEB, it cannot be said that the assessee was not the owner of the windmill installed. The assessee shall not lose the character of owner solely on the ground that the plant and machinery of windmill was under the control of GEB. No error has been committed by the learned CIT(A), which has been confirmed by the learned tribunal, in allowing additional depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹ 1,33,96,265/- at 10% of the cost of windmill installed by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. - Decided n favour of assessee - TAX APPEAL NO. 156 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2017 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. B.N. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hinery of windmill is controlled by GEB and even the electricity generated through the windmill is also used by GEB, it cannot be said that the plant and machinery so installed is owned by the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing Officer denied the additional depreciation by observing that one of the condition provided under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act that the plant and machinery for which additional depreciation is claimed must be owned by the assessee has not been fulfilled. Consequently, the Assessing Officer denied the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee cannot be said to be in the business of generating of electricity by installing the windmill. Feeling aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [3.1] It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue that as rightly observed by the Assessing Officer the main business of the assessee was manufacturing ceramic glaze tiles, and therefore, it cannot be said that the condition mentioned in Section 32(1)(iia) is complied with. It is further submitted by Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue that even otherwise it cannot be said that the windmill in question was as such owned by the assessee. It is submitted that as found and observed by the Assessing Officer the entire control of the plant and machinery /windmill was with the GEB. It is submitted that therefore it cannot be said that the windmill was ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquired and installed by the assessee for generation of electricity. It appears that out of the electricity generated, some electricity was used by GEB. For the aforesaid purpose control of plant and machinery was with the GEB. Merely because control of plant and machinery of the windmill was with GEB, it cannot be said that the assessee was not the owner of the windmill installed. The assessee shall not lose the character of owner solely on the ground that the plant and machinery of windmill was under the control of GEB. [5.0] Under the circumstances, as such, no error has been committed by the learned CIT(A), which has been confirmed by the learned tribunal, in allowing additional depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹ 1,33, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
