AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....une in the case of Punawala Finest and Agro Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT (2008) 118 TTJ (PUNE) 68, 12 dtr 211. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal o the assessee claiming deduction u/s 80IA(5) of the I.T. Act, on the profits earned from generation and sale of electricity from Satara Unit, in the process ignoring the fact that the assessee company had incurred losses from generation and sale of electricity from Tamilnadu and Gudhe Panchagani Unit which were required to be first set of against the profits earned at Satara Unit in terms of provisions of sec. 70 of the I.T. Act and resultant profits was to be allowed as deduction in terms of the provisions of sec. 80IA(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding at Para. No.29 of his order that, every unit constitutes a separate undertaking engaged in the eligible business and losses from one unit cannot be set off against profits of another unit engaged in the same business for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA', as the provisions of sec. 80IA of the I.T. Act referes t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same basis 2,59,66,554 10,88,643 3,62,854 2,74,18,051 WDV as on 01/04/2007 as per Asst. order of A.Y. 2008-09 64,91,638 97,97,790 20,56,171 1,83,45,599 Depreciation for A.Y. 2009-10 on the same basis 51,93,310 9,79,779 3,08,426 64,81,515 Addition for A.Y. 2009-10 5,53,88,000 44,95,194 84,28,618 6,83,11,812 Depreciation on addition for A.Y. 2009-10 on the sane basis 4,43,10,400 4,49,519 12,64,293 4,60,24,212 Total Depreciation allowable 5,25,05,727 Depreciation claimed in the return filed for A.Y. 2009-10 6,10,90,371 Depreciation to be disallowed 85,84,644 The Assessing Officer, accordingly, disallowed the depreciation to the extent of Rs. 85,84,644/- and added to the income of the assessee. 3. In sum and substance the Assessing Officer made the bifurcation of total cost of the Wind Mill and accordingly allowed the depreciation to the assessee. The assessee carried the issue before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) followed his order in the case of M/s. Chaphalkar Brothers in appeal No. SLI/330/10-11 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irected to allow the depreciation as per my directions above in respect of the new wind mills installed. 10. However, in respect of wind mills installed earlier I have held in the case of M/s. Chaphalkar Brother that - 59. As far as the issue raised in ground no. 4 in respect of windmill located at Dhulia is concerned, my predecessor in office had given a finding that no details were made available which would establish the functionality and utility of the foundation in generating electricity from wind turbines. In fact, though the appellant had relied on the decision in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation (supra) in appellate proceedings for assessment year 2007-08 also the aspect of functional utility was never established. Hence, depreciation claim disallowed in respect of foundation of WTGS at Dhulia was upheld by my predecessor. An issue which is the subject matter in appellate proceedings in an earlier assessment year is not liable to be disturbed for the reason that the same office is not competent to sit in judgement on issues decided earlier unless the decision is overruled by higher court. It is a well- known and established tenet in judicial proceedings that a dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on account of erection and commission of windmill I i.e. windmill installed in the preceding assessment year 2006-07 would be necessary as contained in para 2.5 of order of the CIT(A):- S.No. Date Nature of work Expenditure Rs. 1. 30-03-2006 Towards supply and installation of HT electrical Yard with VCB, outdoor type CT & PT and HT Transmission Line from Windmill to Grid interconnection point including HT metering for 1.25 MW WINDMILL AT LOCATION No. K437 at above site address. 30,93,500/- 2. 30-03-2006 Labour charges towards final testing and commissioning for1.25 MW windmill at Loc No. K437. 1,10,200/- 3. 30-03-2006 Towards labour charges for work executed, for erection and installation of windmill consisting of: Unloading and safe keeping of material, Assembly, erection and installation of windmill tower and wind turbine generator for 1.25 MW windmill at Location No K-437 at above site address. 14,32,600/- 4. 04-03-2006 Processing fees 2,58,970/- 5. 31-12-2005 MEDA processing and application fees 6,28,750/- 6. 31-03-2006 Contribution towards common power evacuation infrastructure facility 37,50,000/- 8. In respect of above six compone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice/wind mill, in respect of wind farm project device/wind mill, in respect of wind farm project consisting of one WTG 0.60 MW wind mill at location No.GP-31, Installation (with material) of electrical line for power transmission and metering in respect of wind farm project consisting of one WTG for your 0.60 MW wind mill at location wind mill when these items are not wind mill or specifically designed devices which run on wind mills and as such said items would not classify for depreciation @ 80% as per the depreciation schedule. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred observing that labour work related to installation of one wind turbine generator for Rs. 10,55,056/- was required to be included in the cost of wind turbine generator for allowance of depreciation @ 80% when the said expenses was required to be spread over in the proportion of cost of civil work, cost of wind mill and cost of plant & machinery and the depreciation was to be allowed as applicable rates. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the CIT(A) erred in applying the decision of the ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Poonawala Finvest and Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year. We find that the identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA Nos. 815, 1494, 891 & 1600/PN/2011 order dated 30-01-2013 and has held as under: 15. Against the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the assessee is power general through the wind mills at 3 different locations i.e. in Tamilnadu, Panchgani and Satara. The wind mills are commissioned and erected in different assessment years as noted by the authorities below. Assessee is maintaining separate books of accounts in respect of 3 wind mills and working out the profit or losses. Though the first wind mill was erected and commissioned in the A.Y. 2002-03, there were consistent losses up to the A.Y. 2007- 08 and assessee did not opt for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA(2) of the Act. So far as A.Y. 2008-09 is concerned, assessee opted for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA(2) treating the said assessment year (A.Y.) as an initial assessment year as there was the profit in Satara wind mill but losses in the Tamil Nadu wind mill and Panchgani wind mill. If we l....