9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds of Appeal stated below are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to each other. 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in restricting the claim for depreciation to ₹ 88,955 applying the rate 10% on the cost of Elect. Yard Fencing of ₹ 4,00,298 and cost of Preparation of Road of ₹ 4,89,254 (₹ 8,89,552 in the aggregate) incurred in relation to installation of wind mill as against ₹ 7,11,642 claimed by the appellant applying the rate of 80%. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no construction involving civil work in relation to building or any asset of similar nature independent of windmill and consequently further erred in applying the rate applicable to building to the cost of Elect. Yard Fencing and preparat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated to civil work. Just proper relief be granted to the appellant in this respect . 14. The briefly stated facts pertaining to the Ground No.3 are as under. The assessee has claimed depreciation at the rate of 80% on the Windmills. The 80% of the depreciation was on the total cost of the windmills including the civil work. The Assessing Officer has observed that M/s. Suzlon Infrastructure has raised composite bills of ₹ 31,96,616/- for civil work consisting of construction of one windmill foundation and transformer plinth, electrical yard fencing, road for movement of crane and preparation of crane platform. The Assessing Officer has reservation in allowing the expenditure related to the electrical yard fencing road for movement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parcel of windmill project on which depreciation @80% is allowable. Regarding road it was held that construction for movement of crane could not be allowed as part of windmill but electric yard was held as part of windmill. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow in similar situation the depreciation @80% on electric yard fencing. 4. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation @80% on electric yard fencing. But on the point of depreciation of approach road 10% is justified. We uphold the same. 5. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Similar issue arose in remaining three appeals, so following the same ratio all the rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
