2016 (3) TMI 1183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Y. 2006-07) 2. The Revenue has raised following effective ground: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,33,96,265/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed additional depreciation not on wind farm but on wind mill, and the benefit of additional depreciation under clause (i) of section 32(1) was not extended to the undertaking referred to clause (1) of Section 32(1) of the Act., further, the power generated from the wind farm was controlled by GEB and purchased by GEB and not for the business of the assessee of manufacturing of tiles." 3. The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Revenue by holding as under: "8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The dispute in the present case is whether the assessee is entitled to claim of additional depreciation of wind electric generator. It is the undisputed fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of speciality chemicals and also generation of wind power. The date of installation of wind power generator is not in dispute. The A.O. has disallowed the claim of additional depreciation for the reason that the wind power generator does not result into the manufacture or production of article or thing. Before us, the assessee relied upon the decision of CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (supra) and also placed on record the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y or plant, which was acquired and installed upto 31.03.2002 should have any operational connectivity to the article or thing that was already being manufactured by the assessee. Therefore, the contention that the setting up of a wind mill has nothing to do with the power industry, namely, manufacture of oil seeds etc. is totally not germane to the specific provision contained in Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act." In the case of CIT vs. VTM Ltd.(supra), one of the issue before Hon'ble Madras High Court was whether the assessee what right in claiming additional depreciation u/s.32(iia) Hon'ble Madras High Court has decided the issue in assessee's favour by holding as under: "5. In the case on hand, the assessee is stated to have set up a win....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nes and Chemicals Ltd., (supra), dismiss the appeal of Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Now, we take C.O. No. 233/Ahd/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) 8. Ld. counsel for the assessee has not pressed the Cross Objection. Therefore, the C.O. is dismissed as not pressed. At last, we take ITA No. 2200/Ahd/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) 9. The Revenue has raised following effective ground :- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of excise duty on closing stock of finished goods of Rs. 23,47,928/- without appreciating the facts that the total value of closing stock of finished goods of Rs. 12,92,29,785/- as reflected in the balance sheet, stock of Rs. 9,90,26,206/- was lying in the factory premises and....