DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LOTUS CLEAN POWER VENTURE PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that for claiming depreciation, the assessee must establish taking over physical possession of the windmill. Since this fact was not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed depreciation on a windmill purchased through a Slump Sale Deed. The dispute arose over whether the transfer of the windmill was complete by the relevant date, as full payment was not made by March 26, 2012, as per the agreement.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the windmill when the full consideration was not paid by the stipulated date, and whether taking physical possession is a prerequisite for claiming depreciation.
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.
- Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT215 citing106 Taxmann 166 · 1999 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI [CAMP @ COIMBATORE]
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI [CAMP @ COIMBATORE] �ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी अ�ाहम पी.जॉज�, लेखा सद�य केसम� BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3178/Mds/2016 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Lotus Clean Power Venture Income Tax, v. Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle – 1, No.484, Kamaraj Road, Coimbatore. Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore – 641 015. PAN : AACCL0985E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Pathlaveth Peerya, CIT ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T. Raghunathan, CA सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.01.2017 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore dated 22.08.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2012-13. The only issue arises for consideration is depreciation claimed by the assessee on the windmill.
Shri Pathlaveth Peerya, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that by virtue of Slump Sale Deed dated 23.06.2012, the assessee purchased windmill. As per this Slump Sale agreement, the physical possession of the windmill has to be handed over to the assessee company on 26.03.2012, subject to fulfillment of the lumpsum payment of Rs.90.08 crores to the assessee. Therefore the transfer of windmill is subject to payment of entire consideration of Rs.90.08 crores. Admittedly according to the Ld. counsel, the payment was not made on 26.03.2012. Therefore, there was no transfer of windmill. Referring to the order of the CIT (Appeals), the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has not considered anything about the transfer of windmill. The CIT (Appeals) simply observed that major portion of the amount was debited before 31.03.2012. Therefore, it is obvious that the full consideration was not paid on 26.03.2012. Hence, as per the agreement the assessee cannot become the owner of the windmill.
Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.
On the contrary, Shri T. Raghunathan the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that the substantial payment for purchase of the windmill was paid before 31.03.2016. Therefore, the assessee becomes the beneficial owner of the windmill, even though it was not registered by TNEB. Whereas the assessee becomes the beneficial owner and generates the electricity, according to the Ld.representative the assessee is entitled for depreciation in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd v CIT(1999) 106 Taxman 166 (SC). Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. We have carefully gone through the orders of both the authorities below and also the Slump Sale Deed dated 26.03.2012. As per clause 3 of the Slump Sale Deed dated 26.03.2012, the physical possession of the windmill shall be handed over to the assessee on 26.03.2012 subject to full payment of lumpsum consideration of Rs.90.08 crores. Now, the assessee claims that substantial payment was made and the same was debited in the books of account on 31.03.2012. When the agreement says that the assessee has to pay the entire consideration, it is not known whether the physical possession of the windmill was delivered to the assessee on payment of the so called substantial portion of the sale consideration. For the purpose of applying the judgment of the Apex court in M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd, supra, the assessee has to take over the physical possession of the windmill for the purpose of claiming beneficial ownership. Of course registration by TNEB and other requirements under the common law for the purpose of transfer of ownership may not be a precondition for the purpose of claiming depreciation under the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has to establish that it has taken over the physical possession of the property and enjoyed the same as it is owned. Therefore, the assessee has to establish before the authorities below that it has taken over the physical possession of the property on 26.03.2012. Since, this fact was not examined by CIT (Appeals), this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reexamined. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the entire claim of depreciation is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer shall consider the matter afresh in the light of the material that may be available on record and thereafter bring on record, the actual date on which the physical delivery of the windmill was taken over by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28th February, 2017 at Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Arun Aloysius Barnes vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 14 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026