2013 (5) TMI 1024

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....N/2012 the assessee has raised thefollowing grounds : "The Grounds of Appeal stated below are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to each other. 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in restricting the claim for depreciation to Rs. 88,955 applying the rate 10% on the cost of Elect. Yard Fencing of Rs. 4,00,298 and cost of Preparation of Road of Rs. 4,89,254 (Rs. 8,89,552 in the aggregate) incurred in relation to installation of wind mill as against Rs. 7,11,642 claimed by the appellant applying the rate of 80%. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no construction involving civil work in relation to building or any asset of similar nature independent of windmill and consequently further erred in applying the rate applica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reciation @80% & no part of such expenditure can be considered as related to civil work. Just & proper relief be granted to the appellant in this respect". 14. The briefly stated facts pertaining to the Ground No.3 are as under. The assessee has claimed depreciation at the rate of 80% on the Windmills. The 80% of the depreciation was on the total cost of the windmills including the civil work. The Assessing Officer has observed that M/s. Suzlon Infrastructure has raised composite bills of Rs. 31,96,616/- for civil work consisting of construction of one windmill foundation and transformer plinth, electrical yard fencing, road for movement of crane and preparation of crane platform. The Assessing Officer has reservation in allowing t....