TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he requirement of second proviso to Rule 5(1A) of the Income Tax Rules, and they are entitled for depreciation on windmills as per Appendix I is valid' ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in granting depreciation at 80% on windmills, even though the proviso to section 32(1)(i) and Rule 5(1A) clearly stipulate that only rate of depreciation on the method as provided for in Appendix I A will be relevant for power generating Machinery' iii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in granting depreciation at 80% on windmills, even though the assessee is entitled at the rate of 7.69% of the cos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f furnishing of return of income, it will suffice and no separate letter or request or intimation with regard to of exercise of option is required. Since the returns are filed in accordance with Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act and the form prescribed therein make a provision for exercising an option in respect of the claim of depreciation, no separate procedure is required, as contended by the Department. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal. 21. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 5. Following the above-said decision of this Court, substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 4 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Even the bank confirmations were filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) showing that the cheques issued by the assessee were encashed by the respective parties. The assessee had also furnished identity of persons with complete details of addresses and the FD applications showing details. After satisfying himself with the documents, the CIT(A) has allowed the ground of appeal of the assessee. The DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. No other issue has been raised in this appeal of the Revenue. Since both the issues are decided against the Revenue, the appeal of the Revenue for th....