Appellant wins dispute over windmill depreciation claim

The appellant claimed additional depreciation for a second windmill installation under section 32(1) and Item xiii of New Appendix I. The Assessing Officer denied the claim, arguing the appellant was not engaged in manufacturing. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal based on precedents. The Revenue challenged this decision, contending that as a commission agent, the appellant was not entitled to additional depreciation. The main issue was whether electricity generation through windmills qualifies as manufacturing. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that electricity generation constitutes manufacturing activity under section 32(1)(iia). The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues:
- Claim of additional depreciation on windmill installation
- Interpretation of manufacturing activity for eligibility of additional depreciation

Analysis:
1. Claim of Additional Depreciation on Windmill Installation:
The appellant, engaged in the sale of imported second-hand textile machinery and electricity generation through windmills, installed a second windmill in the current assessment year. The appellant claimed 100% depreciation for the second windmill under section 32(1) and Item xiii of New Appendix I. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim, stating the appellant was not entitled to additional depreciation as they were not involved in manufacturing any goods. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, citing judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in similar cases. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the appellant, being a commission agent and not a manufacturer, should not receive additional depreciation.

2. Interpretation of Manufacturing Activity for Eligibility of Additional Depreciation:
The crux of the issue revolved around whether electricity generation through windmills constitutes manufacturing activity. The appellant contended that electricity production is akin to manufacturing, supported by the Supreme Court's ruling that electricity falls under the definition of goods. They further referenced a judgment stating that the process of electricity generation is similar to manufacturing. The appellant emphasized that production and manufacturing are interchangeable terms, with production having a broader meaning. The Tribunal concurred, stating that electricity generation qualifies as manufacturing activity under section 32(1)(iia), noting a subsequent amendment supporting this interpretation effective from 1.4.2013. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lacking merit.

---