https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218200 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. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218200 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218200