TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Decides: 100% Depreciation for Transformer Expenses, Lower Rates for Site, Control Room, Road Development.</h1> <h3>POONAWALA FINVEST & AGRO (P) LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX</h3> POONAWALA FINVEST & AGRO (P) LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - [2008] 118 TTJ 68 (ITAT [Pune]) Issues Involved:1. Depreciation on site development expenses.2. Depreciation on cost of construction for the control room.3. Depreciation on labour cost for internal road development.4. Depreciation on transformer up to DP structure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Depreciation on Site Development Expenses:The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on site development expenses amounting to Rs. 75,000, arguing it was necessary for the installation of the windmill. The AO treated this as an expense for land improvement, not eligible for depreciation. The CIT(A) upheld this view, stating the expenditure was for clearing the land, not for erecting the windmill, thus it should be embedded in the cost of the land, which is not depreciable. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that site development does not qualify as part of the windmill's cost for depreciation purposes.2. Depreciation on Cost of Construction for the Control Room:The assessee argued that the control room, housing transformers and other equipment, was integral to the windmill's operation and should be considered part of the plant, thus eligible for 100% depreciation. The AO and CIT(A) disagreed, treating the control room as a building providing protection to the equipment, not as part of the plant. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the control room was a civil construction not specifically designed as an integral part of the windmill, thus not qualifying for higher depreciation.3. Depreciation on Labour Cost for Internal Road Development:The assessee claimed that internal roads were essential for the erection and operation of the windmill, thus should be eligible for 100% depreciation. The AO categorized this as a building expense, allowing only 10% depreciation. The CIT(A) supported this, stating that internal roads are incidental facilities, not components of the windmill. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that internal roads, while beneficial, do not qualify as integral parts of the windmill eligible for higher depreciation.4. Depreciation on Transformer up to DP Structure:The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on the transformer and related electrical items costing Rs. 7,00,000, arguing they were crucial for transmitting the generated power to the MSEB sub-station. The AO allowed only 25% depreciation, treating these as general electrical items. The CIT(A) upheld this view. However, the Tribunal differed, recognizing the transformer as integral to the windmill's operation, necessary for transmitting generated power, and thus entitled to 100% depreciation.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the claims for 100% depreciation on site development expenses, control room construction, and internal road development were not justified and upheld the lower rates of depreciation for these items. However, it allowed the claim for 100% depreciation on the transformer up to DP structure, recognizing it as an integral part of the windmill's operation. The appeal was thus partly allowed.
TaxTMI 