Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether civil works, installation, labour, foundation work, land application fee and power evacuation expenditure incurred for a windmill formed part of the windmill project eligible for higher depreciation at 80%; and whether the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the windmill required further consideration.
Analysis: The order records that the windmill could not function without installation, specialised civil construction and electrification, and that these components were so closely linked with the windmill that they constituted a common plant. It further notes that the machinery and its installation infrastructure were specialised and had no independent use apart from the windmill. On that basis, the higher depreciation claim on the connected expenditure was treated as justified. The question relating to additional depreciation was not finally answered and was kept for consideration along with the admitted appeal.
Outcome: The claim for higher depreciation on the connected windmill expenditure was accepted for the purpose of admission, and the appeal was admitted on the remaining question including additional depreciation.