https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261410 The appeal was partially successful as the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was upheld, but the disallowance of higher depreciation on the installation of the electrical line was deleted. The court affirmed the treatment of power evacuation infrastructure as part of the windmill for depreciation purposes, rejecting the appellant's argument. Additionally, the court upheld the allowance of depreciation on the contribution for the power evacuation facility, despite the appellant's challenge based on ownership. en-us Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jul 2015 05:57:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261410 The appeal was partially successful as the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was upheld, but the disallowance of higher depreciation on the installation of the electrical line was deleted. The court affirmed the treatment of power evacuation infrastructure as part of the windmill for depreciation purposes, rejecting the appellant's argument. Additionally, the court upheld the allowance of depreciation on the contribution for the power evacuation facility, despite the appellant's challenge based on ownership. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261410