DCIT CC 3(1) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD WIND FARMS (KARNATAKA) LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6826/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2007-082 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the plinth/foundation is an integral part of the windmill, essential for its stability, and therefore should be treated as plant. Consequently, the higher depreciation rate applicable to windmills was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in wind energy production, claimed depreciation at 80% on the plinth/foundation cost of windmills, treating it as part of the windmill. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation at 5% considering it as building.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the plinth/foundation cost of a windmill qualifies for depreciation at the higher rate applicable to plant or the lower rate applicable to building.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Ghosh
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha
Hearing: 4.5.2017Pronounced: 4.5.2017

The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-08-2016 passed by Ld CIT(A)-51, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2007-08. The solitary issue urged by Revenue is whether the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to wind mill in respect of plinth/foundation cost.

2.

The assessee is engaged in the business of production of electricity through wind mills. The present assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act consequent to search operations conducted on 14.3.2013. The assessee had treated the cost of plinth/foundation of Wind mill as part of wind mill and had claimed depreciation @ 80%. The AO allowed the depreciation at 5% treating the same as Building. The Ld CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Tribunal on identical issue. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed this appeal.

3.

I heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld A.R furnished a copy of order passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s Enercon Windfarms (Jaisalmer) P Ltd in dated 04-06-2010, wherein the Tribunal has held that the basement constructed by the assessee to install and with-hold the heavy wind mill is part and parcel of the wind mill and without specially designed basement, the windmill cannot stand. Accordingly it was further held that the same has to be treated as plant and higher depreciation claimed by the assessee has to be allowed.

4.

The Ld D.R did not furnish any contrary decision of any higher forum. Since the Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the ITAT on an identical issue, I do not find any infirmity in his order.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 4.5.2017.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →