TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh Kumar urges only the following two questions of law for our consideration: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation @80% on the expenses incurred on Power Evacuation Infrastructure, Erection and Commissioning, Line Work and Electrical Fittings without appreciating that these works did not form part of the Windmill and are eligible for depreciation @15% being items of Plant and Machinery? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in allowing depreciation on the cost of civil foundation work @80% by ignoring the fact that civil work of foundation is a building structure and not part of the Windm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als)(CIT[A]). By order dated 10th February, 2011, the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Tribunal in Poonawalla Finvest and Agro Pvt Ltd v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(118 TTJ P.68) and allowed depreciation of 80% relating to (a) to (d) mentioned in paragraph( 3) above. However, so far as items AT (e) to (i) in paragraph(3) above, the CIT(A) upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and disallowed depreciation claimed @80%. 5 Being aggrieved, both the Appeallant-Revenue as well as the Respondent-assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order negatived the appeal of the Revenue by holding that the items listed at (a) to (d) in paragraph(3) above were necessary parts for a Windmill and supported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of a Windmill. Admittedly, this very question arose before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s M/s Eastman Impex being Income Tax Appeal No.350 of 2013 decided on 18th December, 2014 wherein an identical question arose and following the decisions of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s K. K. Enterprises (108 DTR 109) allowed the claim of depreciation made by the Assessee therein similar to one made here. (b) Moreover, the Pubjab and Haryana High Court in Eastman Impex(supra) also refers to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Trumac Engineering Co Pvt Ltd Mumbai v/s Income Tax Officer (Income Tax Appeal No. 555/Mum/2003 rendered on 27th June, 2008) wherein an identical issu....