VERITAS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that labor and electrical items required for installing windmills are eligible for 80% depreciation, as they are essential for the installation. It relied on High Court and Tribunal precedents that consider such works as part of the windmill block.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed 80% depreciation on civil and electrical works for windmills. The Assessing Officer disallowed this, allowing only 10% depreciation, as he considered these works not integral to the windmill. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.
What were the issues?
Whether civil and electrical works incurred for the installation of windmills are eligible for the higher depreciation rate applicable to windmills.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Mehru Electricals & Mechanical Engineers (P) Ltd.5 citing388 ITR 169 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, AM
The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) whereby CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing depreciation of Rs.8,75,000/- claimed by the assessee @ 80% on civil and electrical works for erection and commissioning of Windmills without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The facts in brief are that in the course of set aside assessment proceedings which was taken up by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the direction of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer was M/s. Veritas (India) Ltd. to examine the claim of depreciation on civil and electrical items under the block ‘Windmills’ @ 80% by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, depreciation was admissible at 10% and not 80% as claimed by the assessee as the expenditure by way of civil and electrical works is not integral part of the windmill. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer reduced the depreciation to the extent of Rs.8,75,000/- in assessment framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act vide order dated 28.01.2015. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-
“4.3 I have considered the submissions carefully. It is noted that in the order u/s 263 dated 10.03.2014 the erstwhile Ld CIT-3 Mumbai has held that there would be some labour and civil works involved in installing a windmill but that does not mean that same will also be entitled to higher rate of depreciation @ 80%. It appears that the appellant has accepted this decision in the order u/s 263. The assessing officer has passed the order accordingly. Even otherwise, civil works and routine electrical wiring and cabling is not an integral part of Windmill and thus not entitled to higher rate of depreciation. The ground of appeal no. 1 is therefore dismissed.”
3. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case the assessee has capitalised the labour and electrical expenditure under the head ‘Windmills’ which were incurred for installation of windmills. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee is not entitled to depreciation @ 80% and accordingly, he reduced the depreciation to 10% which has resulted in to disallowance of Rs.8,75,000/-. In the appellate proceedings also, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that labour and civil works including electrical items do not constitute part of block ‘Windmills’ and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We have examined the facts of the case and also various decisions relied by the learned
M/s. Veritas (India) Ltd. representative of the assessee in the course of hearing. We are of the opinion that even the labour and electrical items required to install windmills would be eligible for depreciation @ 80% as the expenses are essential for installation of windmill. In the case of CIT vs Mehru Electricals & Mechanical Engineers (P.) Ltd., [2016] 388 ITR 169, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that civil and electrical generators are to be taken as part of the windmill and the rate of depreciation applicable would be that of the windmill. Similar ratio has been laid down by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawala Finvest & Agro (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT, [2009] 27 SOT 47 (Pune) (URO) wherein the co- ordinate bench has held that the expenses incurred on the installation of windmill in the nature of civil works and transformer upto the DP structure constituted part of the windmill block and are eligible to the same rate of depreciation as that of the windmill. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, we are inclined to set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to allow depreciation @ 80%. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs.8,75,000/- is ordered to be deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th January, 2021.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026