TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1961 . 2. The assessee has raised only one substantive ground in respect of disallowance of deprecation on windmills on WDV Method for both assessment years. Since the issue in these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together, and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. We consider the facts as narrated in ITA No.915/Mds/2015 for adjudication. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is in the business of manufacture of windmill energy and filed return of income on 24.09.2010 with Nil income with carried forward unabsorbed deprecation of =19,59,919/- and return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has claimed de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l position the return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 was not filed by the assessee before the due date, being the first year 2009-2010 and allowed deprecation @7.69% on straight line method. The Assessing Officer completed assessment by disallowing claim of deprecation on WDV method and allowed deprecation admissible at 7.69%. Similarly, for the assessment year 2011-12, Assessing Officer disallowed deprecation being third year and allowed depreciation on SLM basis. Aggrieved by the orders for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-12 passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee has raised grounds and also challenged valid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r written down value method and further argued that there is no statutory requirement of filing prior intimation to the Assessing Officer as claim of deprecation was considered for computing total income and assessee company has complied the provisions of Sec.32 (1) of the Act r.w.r 5(1A)of Income Tax Rules, 1962 for claim of depreciation and prayed for allowing the appeals. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of lower authorities and argued that case laws referred by the Authorised Representative are not applicable in the present context and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 7. We heard the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the material on record and also judicial decisions c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of April 1997; and (b) For the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which it begins to generate power, in case of any other undertaking: Provided also that any such option once exercised shall be final and shall apply to all the subsequent assessment years. In the present case, the assessee has filed return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 belatedly on 23.12.2009 being the first year of installation of windmill and deprecation was claimed, further no option exercised by the company for claiming deprecation on written down method as per Rule 5(1A) of the Income Tax Rules before the due date u/s.139(1) of the Act whereas for the assessment year 2010- 2011 and 2011-2012, the assessee claimed deprecation at 80% on....