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>High Court rules for Commissioner of Income Tax in M/s Eastman Impex case</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Versus M/s Maxwell Inc.</h3> The High Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled in favor of the appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Ludhiana, in the case against M/s Eastman Impex. ... Rate of depreciation - 80% or 15% - Renewable energy device - nature of power evacuation infrastructure attached to a wind mill - Held that:- See order of even date passed in Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Ludhiana Vs. M/s Eastman Impex.[ 2015 (1) TMI 436 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] A wind mill, which is admittedly a source of renewable energy, cannot possibly function without power evacuation infrastructure and, therefore, to hold that it is not integral to a wind mill would be travestying of facts and justice. It would be necessary to clarify that we are not dealing with an ordinary device, where transmission lines and electricity generation devices are involved but a wind mill, which obviously cannot supply electricity without power evacuation infrastructure as integral to its very functioning and user. ITAT was justified in law, in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein disallowance of higher depreciation @ 80% on account of expenditure on installation of electrical line for power transmission and metering treated as not part of wind mill by the A.O., was deleted by the CIT(A)- Decided against Revenue The High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued a judgment in 2014 (12) TMI 1238 regarding a case involving Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Ludhiana Vs. M/s Eastman Impex. Justices Rajive Bhalla and B.S. Walia presided over the case. The appellant was represented by Mr. Rajesh Katoch, while the respondent was represented by Mr. S.K. Mukhi and Ms. Prena. The reference for this judgment is 2015 (1) TMI 436.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
