High Court allows additional depreciation claim for windmills in manufacturing business

The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The Court held that the assessee, engaged in manufacturing and selling Pet Bottles, was entitled to claim additional depreciation for windmills installed to enable captive consumption of energy, even though wind energy generation was not their primary business. The Court emphasized that operational connectivity to the existing business was not a prerequisite for claiming additional depreciation, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court of Madras concerned the entitlement of the assessee for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue raised substantial questions of law regarding the correctness of allowing additional depreciation on windmills under Section 32(1)(ii)(a) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issue revolved around whether the assessee was entitled to claim additional depreciation for windmills under the said provision.

The Assessing Officer initially denied the additional depreciation, stating that the primary business of the assessee did not involve the generation of wind energy. However, the assessee contended that their business of manufacturing and selling Pet Bottles was power-intensive and that the windmills were installed to enable captive consumption of energy. The assessee argued that the generation of electricity by the windmills was intricately linked to their business operations. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contentions, emphasizing that there was no requirement for windmills to be the primary business of the assessee to claim additional depreciation.

The High Court considered the arguments and referred to relevant case law, including the decision in CIT Vs. Atlas Export Enterprise, to support the assessee's position. The Court highlighted that the nature of the transaction between the assessee and the Tamilnadu Electricity Board indicated the generation of power by the assessee, which was then fed into the grid for distribution. The Court also cited the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai Vs. VTM Ltd., which clarified that operational connectivity to the existing business was not a prerequisite for claiming additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act.

In light of the legal precedents and the arguments presented, the High Court dismissed the tax case appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and answering the substantial questions of law against the Revenue. The Court held that the assessee was entitled to claim additional depreciation for the windmills, as the generation of power was intricately linked to their business operations.

---