2017 (4) TMI 1534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... grounds: 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) to the extent of Rs. 3,45,52,281/-. 2.2 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation on the purchase of wind mills u/s. 32(1)(iia) even though the main business of the assessee is not producing or generating electricity. 2.3 The CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim on additional depreciation on windmill for the year under consideration in view of the fact that benefit of additional depreciation on power generation will apply in relation to assessment year 2013-14 onwards and will not apply to the year under consideration as per amended provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. 3. The Br....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Act is disallowed and Assessed the loss and passed order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 06.03.2015. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee company filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings the Ld. AR argued that the Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the additional depreciation and also erred in not following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CIT vs Texmo Precision Castings (Supra) and observed that the generation of Wind energy is not a part of the assessee business. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the findings of the Assessing Officer and submissions and judicial decisions relied by the assessee at Page 3 of the order. The Ld. CIT(A) found the issue is squarely covered in favour of the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spectfully following the view endorsed by the jurisdictional High Court time and again, I have no hesitation in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 3,45,52,281/- made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant succeeds on this ground." 5. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the Revenue has filed an appeal with the Tribunal. Before us, the Ld. DR argued that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation on purchase of Wind Mills u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act, even though the main business is not producing or generating electricity and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court was not accepted by the Department and SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Cou....