2015 (5) TMI 1044

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....15,60,000/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee 80% on Windmill Projects, by ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Travancore Cochin Chemical Ltd. V/s 106 ITR 900 and allowing depreciation on contribution of Power Evacuation infrastructure Facility even though the assesee has no ownership of the asset, being only a contributor for availing the facility." ii) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the Power evacuation infrastructure as part of Wind Mill and as Renewable Energy Device whereas the AO has brought on record sufficient material to prove that same was in fact not a Renewable Energy Device and h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lity would constitute a device for renewable energy and whether the assessee would be entitled to depreciation @ 80%. The AO held that this is not a part of renewable energy devices and depreciation was allowed only @ 7.5% (15% for the whole year). However on appeal the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the depreciation @40% (i.e., 80% for the whole year). 4. Before us Ld. DR strongly supported the order of AO. 5. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT-I, Ludhiana Vs. M/s Maxwell Inc. in ITA No. 167 of 2014. 6. After considering the rival submissions we find that Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has clearly held in case of C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee had interest income which was treated by him as income from other sources. 13. On appeal Ld. CIT(A) decided this issue in favour of the assessee vide Para 11 which is as under "11. I have considered the facts of the case which clearly show that the assessee is in the business of money lending and he income on this account should be assessed under the head income from business and profession and not under the head income from the other sources. The AR has also highlighted the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of sister concerns of the assessee firm wherein on similar issue the decision has been in favour of the assessee that the income from money lending was to be treated as business income. In the cir....