TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 3. That the Ld. DRP has earned in law and in facts in upholding the additions of Rs. 3,55,95,528/- made to the taxable income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer on erroneous interpretation of law and facts submitted by the Assessee in respect to Solar Power Plant installed at Bikaner & Manesar and depreciation claimed during the year. 3.1. That the Ld. DRP earned in law and in facts and circumstances of the assessee's case for issuing direction that the 50% of normal depreciation @ 80% has to be allowed in AY 2014-15 for both solar plant. 3.2. That the Ld. DRP has failed to appreciate that the Assessee has installed and put to use solar power plant at Bikaner in financial year 2014-15 and is eligible to claim depreciation from AY 2015-16 onwards. 3.3. That the Ld. DRP without any cogent reason directed that solar plant installed at the roof of the office premises for captive consumption is not eligible to claim additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.4. That the Ld. DRP misdirected himself in upholding the addition inspite of independent verification by him apart the year of put to use of solar power plant. The addition made by AO an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... However, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the appeal could not be filed on time. Further, it is stated that the assessee was also pursuing remedy u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of the order. Ld.CIT DR opposed these submissions and submitted that there is no reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 2.1. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. For the reasons stated in the application and respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2015, declaring total income of INR 22,74,13,620/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection ("CASS") and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 16.03.2016 and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to the statutory notices, Ld. Authorized Representative ("AR") of the assessee attended the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the year under consideration, however, the learned DRP while adjudicating on this issue has held that the said 'Solar Power Plants' were installed and put to use on 30.03.2014 and therefore the Assessee is eligible for depreciation in Assessment Year 2014-15 at half of the rates because the solar power plants were used for less than 180 days and balance 50% depreciation is allowable in AY 2015-16. The learned DRP has discussed this issue at internal pages 18 to 23 of its order. The reasoning given by the learned Assessing Officer for not allowing depreciation at all on these solar power plants has been set aside by the Hon'ble DRP and those facts are undisputed that solar power plants were actually acquired by the assessee and used for its business. The only grievance which has been raised through these grounds is that whole of the depreciation should be allowed in the present Assessment Year i.e. Assessment Year 2015-16 and the directions given by the learned DRP for allowing part of the depreciation in Assessment Year 2014-15 should be reversed. Without prejudice to these submissions, it is respectfully submitted that although the learned Assessing officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be held that the assessee was eligible for additional depreciation on this solar power plant as well as it was installed in the factory premises." 7. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is the contention of the assessee that the authorities below grossly erred in not allowing the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. It is stated that the assessee had installed two Solar Power Plants, one at Bikaner in Rajasthan, from which electricity generated and sold to 'Rajasthan Electricity Board' and another at factory premises in IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. The cost of these Solar Power Plants were INR 6,03,75,057/- and INR 1,04,00,000/- respectively. So far, the Solar Power Plant installed at Bikaner, Rajasthan, the depreciation has been held to be allowed. However, in respect of other solar Power Plant, the depreciation is declined on the basis that the same has been installed in the office premises. It is the contention that the lower authorities w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed- (i) in the case of assets of an undertaking engaged in generation or generation and distribution of power, such percentage on the actual cost thereof to the assessee as may be prescribed. (ii) in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed 12.12 As per the provision of section 32(1) of the Act, the assessee can claim depreciation on the assets owned and used for the business of the assessee. It is evident beyond doubt the assessee had owned the assets as solar power plant and used for the business purposes in the AY 2014-15 only. 12.13 It is further provided as first proviso to section 32(1) of the Act as under: "Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause (1) or clause (ii) or clause (ia) for the first proviso to clause (iia)], as the case ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power, a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii): 12.18 However, there are certain exceptions provided in the said section vide second proviso to the sub section (iia) of section 32(1) of the Act which reads as under: "Provided that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of (A) any machinery or plant which, before its installation by the assessee, was used either within or outside India by any other person; or (B) any machinery or plant installed in any office premises or any residential accommodation, including accommodation in the nature of a guest-house; or (C) any office appliances or road transport vehicles; or (D) any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income charge....