TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee for use of Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities. 3 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee installed W ind Mill. The assessee made some contribution towards Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities and claimed 80% depreciation on the same. The depreciation was disallowed on the basis that the assessee was not owner of this facility and in any case this facility is not in the nature of Renewal Energy device. In this background the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation only @ 15%. 4 On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities is absolutely essential for the W ind Mill to generate electricity to be practically available to the eventual customers. In other words, wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....generated from the wind mill farm at Navadra / Bhogat site is delivered to the sub-station of GEDA through HT lines. This power in turn is transferred to GEDA for further transmission. For this purpose, connection of grid at substation is required. The contribution made to GEDA is towards setting up of centralized substation at Lamba, through which the electricity generated by the wind farm would be delivered to the grid. The claim was made on the basis of information available. In fact, subsequently, assessee received confirmation, as stated in the preceding Para, from GEDA, for fixing the contribution of Rs. 35,60,862.75 out of Rs. 42,50,000/- for formation of substation and the balance, it was intimated, will be utilized towards running ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dependent machinery and not part of the integrated machinery. The submission of the learned counsel is that if the machinery installed at the first stage of installing the windmill itself, the claim of the asessee; would have been allowed, Merely because for some reason or other it was subsequently installed, does not mean that it is not a part of the machinery as such,. Since the machinery had no independent functioning, we are of the view that the decision of the Hon 'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Birla Jute Manufacturing; Ltd. (supra) is clearly applicable. In the case of Excel Industries Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held; payment made for overhead service line, which remained the property of Electricity Board, is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudicated by the Tribunal by the Tribunal in case of ACIT V. Eastman Impex, Ludhiana, ITAs No. 819 & 820/Chd/2012. 13 After considering the rival submissions and on the basis of logic given by the Tribunal in case of ACIT V. Eastman Impex (supra) which we have reproduced above. We find nothing wrong in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 14 One more issue has been raised in ITA No. 1127/Chd/2012 for allowing depreciation at 80% because equipment was used for only 180 days. 15 After hearing both the parties we find that the issue has been adjudicated by the Assessing Officer as under: " In view of the discussion above, it is held that expenditure relatable to power evacuation infrastructure facilities amounting t....