2011 (6) TMI 803

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er consideration are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) concluding that the windmill foundation is eligible for depreciation on Par with windmill in the absence of any categorical evidence produced by the assessee in support of the claim that it is integral part of 'windmill'. The ratio of Poonawala Finvest & Agro [P] Ltd. reported in [2008] 118 TTJ [Pune] 68 clearly brings out this and supports the case of the Revenue. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed depreciation @ 40% on total cost of wind mill installed of ₹ 6,73,30,366/-. This amount included ₹ 36,17,810/- for the cost of civil works incurred for road platform, control room, etc. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation @ 5% on this amou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder consideration. 10. Ground No. 4 of the appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) holding that infrastructural fee paid to TNEB are entitled to depreciation as eligible for wind mill relying on the decision of the ITAT, 'D' Bench, Chennai in ITA Nos. 362 & 470/Mds/2009 dated 4.9.2009 in the case of M/s Devendra Spinners P. Ltd as the decision of the Tribunal on this issue was not accepted by the department and the appeal has been admitted before the Hon'ble High Court. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed depreciation @ 40% on infrastructure fee paid to TNEB ₹ 96,90,000/-. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation @ 7.5% on the said amount and disallowed the balance amount of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ind mill. 17. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed depreciation @ 40% on cost of transformers amounting to ₹ 15 lakhs. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation @ 7.5% on the said amount and disallowed the balance amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee. 18. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the transformer is separate machinery which is used for the purpose of transmission of electrical power generated upto substation. The function of such unit is that the electricity so generated is required to be transferred and transmitted to cable line upto substation, where the actual units so generated are stored and metered. This is the function of the transformer upto DP str....