DCIT, CHENNAI V. Century Flour Mills Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2225/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8048 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R DURAIPANDIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S NAGARAJAN
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , # '$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . /ITA NO. 2225/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI 34. ( /APPELLANT) V. M/S. CENTURY FLOUR MILLS LTD., INDIAN CHAMBER BUILDING, 1 ST FLOOR, ESPLANADE, CHENNAI 600 108. PAN AAACC1223C. RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. DURAIPANDIAN, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. NAGARAJAN, CA ! / DATE OF HEARING : 19.01.2016 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.01.2016 % / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DATED 13 .8.2015. - - ITA 2225/15 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF TH E I.T. ACT. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 SE VEN WINDMILLS FROM WHICH POWER WAS BEING GENERATED AND USED FOR OWN CONSUMPTION AS WELL AS BEING SUPPLIED TO TN EB. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OBSERVED TH AT THESE WINDMILLS WERE COMMISSIONED BETWEEN 27.3.1995 AND 23.2.2010. EACH OF THESE WINDMILLS WERE INSTAL LED IN DIFFERENT PLACES AND WERE GOVERNED BY SEPARATE POWE R PURCHASE AGREEMENT, SEPARATE METER CONNECTION AND SEPARATE APPROVALS AS ALSO METER AND BILLING. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S.80IA OF THE ACT, RESTED ON THE PREMISE THAT EACH OF THE WINDMILL WAS A SEPARATE UNDERTAKIN G. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO GRANT OF DEPRE CIATION ON WINDMILL, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1650/MDS/2015 DATED 16.10.20 15, OBSERVED THAT EACH WINDMILL IS TO B E CONSIDERED - - ITA 2225/15 3 INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE AND AS A CONSEQUENCE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA TO BE COMPUTED AND DECIDED THE I SSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(AP PEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80 IA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSE AND THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. THE NEXT GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING 60% DEPRECIATION ON UPS AS AGAINST 15% GRANTED BY THE AO. 5. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 715 TO 718/MDS/2014 DATED 21.11.2014, WHEREIN IT WAS OBSER VED AS UNDER: 13. THE REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.718/MDS/2014 CHALLENGES THE CIT(A)S ORDER ALLOWING ADDITION DEPRECIATION IN CASE OF ASSESSEES WINDMILL (IDENTICAL TO OUR FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 12006-07 TO 2008-09 DECIDED HEREIN ABOVE) AND ACCEPTING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM @ 60% ON UPS - - ITA 2225/15 4 AS AGAINST ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION RESTRICTING I T @ 15% IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 29 TH OF JAN., 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $% & ) ( ' ( ) $ ) *%+,-,./01,2345,.62,+778,293 : ;< /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ;<=>>70.?,.?@A1BA2 ': /CHENNAI, C; /DATED, THE 29 TH JAN., 2016. MPO* ;D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H3 /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. JLM /GF.