MAHABAL METALS PVT LTD,MIRAJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 380/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 July 2019AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation on windmills is allowable, citing High Court decisions that support this claim for assessees engaged in windmill energy generation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing auto parts and generating electricity through windmills, claimed additional depreciation on its windmill units. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied this claim.

What were the issues?

Whether additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) is allowable on windmills when the assessee is also engaged in other manufacturing activities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(iia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
For Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur dated 08-12-2016 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2 ITA No. 380/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012-13

The solitary ground raised by the assessee in appeal is against disallowance of additional depreciation claimed u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on Windmill.

2.

Shri C.H. Naniwadekar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of auto parts and generation of electricity through Windmill. The assessee has installed four Windmill units and has claimed additional depreciation on the Windmill. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have denied the assessee’s claim of additional depreciation on Windmill u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. reported as 321 ITR 477, which was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Atlas Export Enterprises reported as 373 ITR 414 (Mad.). The ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.M. Salgaonkar & Bros. (P.) Ltd. reported as 272 CTR 25 has held that where the assessee is also engaged in generation of Windmill energy, the assessee would be entitled to additional depreciation under the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that Pune Bench Third Member decision in the case of M/s. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 186 TTJ 146 has reiterated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Atlas Export Enterprises (supra).

3 ITA No. 380/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012-13

3.

On the other hand Shri N. Ashok Babu representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee.

4.

Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. The solitary issue in the appeal is with respect to allowability of assessee’s claim of additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on Windmill. The allowability of additional depreciation on Windmill is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (supra) has held that apart from other business where the assessee is engaged in generation of power through Windmill, the assessee is eligible to claim additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act. This position was reiterated by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Atlas Export Enterprises (supra). The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.M. Salgaonkar & Bros. (P.) Ltd. (supra) had held that where the assessee company is engaged in the business of iron ore and also in generation of Windmill energy, the assessee would be entitled to additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The Tribunal in various decisions have reiterated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

5.

Thus, in view of well settled law, we find merit in the contentions of the assessee and allow the solitary ground raised in the appeal. The findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue are reversed. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant the benefit of

4 ITA No. 380/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012-13

additional deprecation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on Windmill to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 10th day of July, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (डी. करुणाकरा राव/D. Karunakara Rao) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 10th July, 2019 RK आदेश की प्रयिलऱवऩ अग्रेवषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur 3. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolhapur ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाडड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रयत // True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

यनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 32(1)(iia)

All 553 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(iia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →