Tribunal affirms depreciation eligibility for electrical installations, Revenue's appeals dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the decision that electrical installations constituted part of the plant and machinery, affirming eligibility for depreciation at the specified rate. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed for failing to challenge this finding, and the Cross Objection was also dismissed as the Revenue's appeals were rejected on merits, making the issue of reopening assessment irrelevant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2006-07.
2. Appeal by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2008-09.
3. Cross Objection filed by the assessee in Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2006-07.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the Revenue's appeals was regarding the eligibility of depreciation on electrical installations claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had allowed depreciation at 15% on the electrical equipment, considering them as "electrical fittings" necessary for power distribution to the plant and machinery. However, the assessee contended that the electrical equipment constituted part of the plant and machinery and should be eligible for depreciation at 15%.

2. The Appellate Tribunal examined the items listed in the assessment order for the relevant year, noting that they were integral to the plant and machinery, such as industrial cables, power distribution board, control cabin, and converter panel. These items were not standalone electrical fittings like fans and lights. The Tribunal referenced decisions from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Jurisdictional High Court to support the view that the electrical installation should be treated as part of the plant and machinery for depreciation purposes.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the electrical installation constituted part of the plant and machinery, affirming the eligibility for depreciation at the specified rate for plant and machinery. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as they failed to challenge this specific finding. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as the Revenue's appeals were rejected on merits, rendering the issue of reopening assessment irrelevant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee.

---