Depreciation on cogeneration power plant machinery as part of integrated unit; 80% rate and s.32(1)(iia) additional allowance upheld

Whether plant and machinery forming an integral part of a co-generation/power generation unit qualified for depreciation at 80% was decided by applying the principle that items which cannot function standalone and operate only as part of the integrated cogeneration system are eligible for the higher rate; following co-ordinate Bench precedent, the disallowance was rejected and the revenue's ground failed. Whether additional depreciation under s. 32(1)(iia) was allowable was decided on the basis that the statutory conditions were admittedly satisfied and the assessee was engaged in manufacture/production, and, per HC authority, no operational nexus is required between the new machinery and the existing manufactured product; the claim was upheld and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation at the rate of 80% on all Plant & Machinery used in the co-generation unit.
2. Additional depreciation on certain assets.
3. Excess depreciation claim of 80% instead of 15%.
4. Excess additional depreciation on certain assets.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Depreciation at the Rate of 80% on All Plant & Machinery Used in the Co-Generation Unit:

The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation at 80% on all Plant & Machinery used in the co-generation unit, without considering that the Income Tax Rules specify which Plant & Machinery are eligible for such a rate. The assessee argued that additional depreciation on new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 31.03.2005 is eligible under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The AO disallowed this claim, stating that the words "or in the business of generation and distribution of power" were added by the Finance Act 2012 effective from 01.04.2013, making additional depreciation allowable only from AY 2013-14. However, the CIT(A) and various judicial decisions, including the Chennai Tribunal in M. Satishkumar V/s DIT, held that generation of electricity is a manufacturing activity, thus qualifying for additional depreciation even before AY 2013-14. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

2. Additional Depreciation on Certain Assets:

The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in allowing additional depreciation on certain assets not eligible for such claims, despite similar disallowances being upheld for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The AO disallowed additional depreciation on assets totaling Rs. 844.47 Lacs, stating that these assets were eligible for additional depreciation only from AY 2013-14. The CIT(A) relied on judicial decisions, including the Chennai Tribunal in M. Satishkumar V/s DIT and the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Texmo Precision Castings, to conclude that generation of electricity qualifies as a manufacturing process, thus allowing additional depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

3. Excess Depreciation Claim of 80% Instead of 15%:

The AO disallowed higher depreciation of 80% claimed by the assessee on specific assets like Chimney, Bagasse Handling System, Distribution Control Systems, Air Compressor, Ash Handling Systems, and others, stating that these were mere accessories and not eligible for 80% depreciation. The CIT(A) concluded that these assets were integral parts of the power generation unit, thus eligible for 80% depreciation. The Tribunal found that the assets formed part of the co-generation plant and could not function independently, thereby upholding the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

4. Excess Additional Depreciation on Certain Assets:

The AO disallowed additional depreciation on certain assets totaling Rs. 2510.79 Lacs, stating they were not eligible under Section 32(1)(iia). The CIT(A) opined that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and the assets were used in the business of generation of power, thus eligible for additional depreciation. The Tribunal found that the assessee fulfilled all conditions under Section 32(1)(iia) and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The order was pronounced on 21st March 2022.

---