ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Sridevi Cinemas P. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2908/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4607 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B GOWTHAWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 32

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , # $ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2908/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -20(1), CHENNAI. VS . M/S. SRIDEVI CINEMAS PVT. LTD., NO. 870, SANGAM THEATRE COMPLEX, POONAMALLE HIGH ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI 600 010. [PAN: AABCS 0444E] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. GOWTHAWAN, CA *+& ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT ' /DATE OF HEARING : 05.04.2017 ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.05.2017 /O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-14, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 14/2011 -12 DATED 22.06.2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. :-2-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 2. BEFORE WE PROCEEDED FOR HEARING THERE IS A DELAY OF 22 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE LD. DR FILED CONDONA TION PETITION AND EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DELAY WHICH ARE NOT DELIBERATE. FURTHER, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTIONS FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASONABLE CAUSE EXPLAINED IN AFFIDAVIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELATE DLY. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2 THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CIVIL WORKS AND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS ARE NOT INTEGRAL PART OF T HE WINDMILL. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IF FUNC TIONAL TEST IS APPLIED, ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION COULD NOT BE TREAT ED ON PAR WITH A WINDMILL, FOR GRANTING HIGHER DEPRECIATION. 4. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE WINDMILL IS A SEPARATE UNIT. AND THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION AND CIVIL WORKS ARE NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF WINDMILL. 5. IN THIS REGARD, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. POPULAR BORE WELL SERVICE AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 194 ITR 12 (MAD) CAN BE RELIED U PON. IN THIS DECISION THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS WHILE ANS WERING THE QUESTION 'WHETHER RIGS AND COMPRESSORS MOUNTED ON L ORRIES' WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AS APPLICABLE TO LORRIES H AD ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. IN COMING TO THIS DECISION THE HON'BLE CO URT INTER ALIA OBSERVED THE DRILLING RIGS AND COMPRESSOR ARE INDEP ENDENT ITEMS OF MACHINERIES. A RIG CAN EXIST WITHOUT BEING PLACED O N A LORRY. :-3-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 6. IN THE SAME WAY, IN THE CASE OF ELECTRICAL FITTI NGS AND INSTALLATIONS IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED-AS AN INTEGRAL P ART OF A WINDMILL. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEPRECIAT ION AVAILABLE @ 80% TO INDEPENDENT MACHINERIES LIKE ELECTRICAL FITT INGS .AND ELECTRICAL CABLES ARE AGAINST THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ERR VS. POPULAR BOREWELL SERVICE AND OTHER (1991) (194 ITR 12) 7. THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J.K.K TEXTILE PROCESSING MILLS (1998)(242 I TR 165) IS ALSO RELIED UPON WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS INSTALLED IN THE TEXTILE PR OCESSING MILL OF ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTEGRAL PAR T OF THE TEXTILE PROCESSING MACHINERY OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ELEC TRICAL TRANSFORMERS ARE INDEPENDENT INSTRUMENTS BY THEMSELVES AND ACCOR DINGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANSFORMERS WOULD NOT QUALIFY F OR ANY EXTRA SHIFT ALLOWANCE AND ONLY THE GENERAL RATE OF DEPRECIATION WILL BE PERMISSIBLE FOR THE TRANSFORMERS. THIS ANALOGY ALSO APPLIES TO THE PRESENT CASE. 8. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE RELIED UPON CASE VIZ. M ALLOW INTERNATIONAL VS. DCIT(ITA NO. 564/MDS/10 DT.9.7.20 10) HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY AND DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED APPE AL U/S.260 A BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS RUNNING A CINEMA THEATRE COMPLEX IN THE NAME OF SANGAM CINEMA AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 28.09.2009 WITH TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 1,81,40,790/- AND UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND UNDER THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT, BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 68,21,827/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S. :-4-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELE CTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE, LD. AR APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED THE DETAILS RELATING FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS I NSTALLED WINDMILL AT DHANKKARKULAM TALUK, RADHAPURAM, TIRUNELVELI AND SA ME WAS PURCHASED FROM SUZION INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD., AND LAND WAS PURCHASED FROM M/S. SUBH REALTY (SOUTH) PRIVATE LTD., AND THE LAND COST WORKED OUT TO RS. 9 LAKHS AND THE COST OF WINDMILL IS RS. 3,69,05,001/- AND T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 80% AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,95,24,001/-. THE WINDMILL WAS INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE CERTIFICATE IS SUED BY TNEB ON 01.07.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED DEPRECIATION ON TOTAL COST OF WINDMILL, WHERE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 40,29,005/- TOWARDS THE SUPPLY OF ELECTRICAL WO RKS INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL ITEMS AND TOTAL AGGREGATING TO RS. 41,95 ,000/- AND CIVIL WORKS EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 27,20,000/-. THE LD. AO CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND FINDINGS IN THE STATEMENTS REFERRED AT PAGE 2 & 3 OF HIS ORDER AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEPR ECIATION AT THE RATE OF 80% ON THE ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND CIVIL WORKS AND THER EFORE RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION TO 10% AND MADE ADDITION TO THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ASSESSED TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 1,33,00,290/- AND PASSED ORDER U/ S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 16.12.2011. :-5-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AP PEAL WITH THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND SUBSTANTIATED HIS SUBMISSIONS WITH THE FACTS AND AL SO JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT 80% ON THE WINDMILL INCLUD ING THE EXPENDITURE OF ELECTRICAL AND CIVIL WORKS. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDE RED THE FACTS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION ON CIVIL WO RKS AND ELECTRICAL FITTINGS, WHERE EXTERNAL POWER USED TO TRANSMIT THE POWER GEN ERATION AND THE WINDMILL IS OF SPECIALIZED ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND HIGH TENS ION LINES WHICH ARE THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS AND CANNOT BE OBJECTED. THE LD. CIT(A ) DEALT ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT AND RELIED ON THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. MALLOW INTERNATIONAL, 564 TO 56 7/MDS/2010 DATED 09.07.2010 AT PARA 4.1 OF THE ORDER AND DELETED THE ADDITION AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , THE REVEN UE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR ARGUED TH AT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CIVIL WORKS AND ELEC TRICAL INSTALLATION ARE NOT PART OF THE WINDMILLS AND ALSO FUNCTIONAL TEST HAS TO BE APPLIED. THE WINDMILL IS A SEPARATE UNIT AND CANNOT BE INTEGRAL PART OF THE UN IT AND SUPPORTED HIS SUBMISSIONS WITH THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND EXPLAIN ED THAT THE DECISION RELIED ON THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF MALLOW INTERNATION ALS VS DCIT (SUPRA) IS NOT :-6-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 ACCEPTED AND DEPARTMENT HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH HI GH COURT AND IS PENDING. CONTRA, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) AND CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISIONS. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE SOLE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND CIVIL WORKS CANNOT BE A INTEGRAL PART OF THE WI NDMILL AND THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. WE FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND CONSIDERED THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR TH AT THE ISSUE HAS NOT ATTAIN FINALITY AND APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. THIS TRIBUNAL C ANNOT TAKEN DIFFERENT VIEW ON FILING OF APPEAL AND SAME IS PENDING BEFORE HIGH CO URT, AND WHEREAS THE LD. AR ALSO SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH THE JUDICIAL D ECISIONS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH M/S. ASIAN HANDLOOM ITA NO. 176/MDS/2010, DCI T VS M/S. MADRAS CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 1391, 1392 & 1655/MDS/2011 DAT ED 24.07.2012 AND CIT VS CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES LTD., HONBLE H IGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO 2125 OF 2013 DATED 01.03.2016. WE CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS FOLLOW THE JU DICIAL PRECEDENCE AND THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF MALLOW INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) AT PAGE 3 PARA 6 WHICH IS READ AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. VIS--VIS WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED D.R. THAT ONLY SUCH ITEMS W HICH ARE ESSENTIAL :-7-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 FOR SETTING UP OF A WINDMILL COULD BE CONSIDERED PA RT THEREOF, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE. HOWEVER, IN NONE OF THE RELE VANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE A.O. HAD GIVEN ANY FINDING THAT CLAIM O F CIVIL WORK AND ELECTRICAL FITTINGS WERE NOT PART OF THE WINDMILL. THOUGH INITIALLY THE A.O. HAS TAKEN A STAND THAT CIVIL WORK AND ELECTRIC AL FITTINGS DID NOT FORM PART OF WINDMILL, LATER BASED ON SSESSEES RE PLY, HIS CONCLUSION AS A PART WAS THAT ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND EQUIPMEN TS THOUGH ATTACHED TO THE WINDMILL, COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ITS PAR T WARRANTING HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE POSITION THAT CIVIL WORK AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTS WERE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WINDMILL. THIS BEING SO, IN OUR OPI NION, SUCH EXPENSES COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ITEMS WHICH WERE NOT NEC ESSARY FOR INSTALLATION OF THE WINDMILL. 7. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF ENHANCED DEPRECIATIO N FOR CIVIL AND ELECTRICAL FITTINGS, FOR WINDMILLS IN OUR OPINI ON, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S ASIAN HANDLOOM REFERRED TO ABOVE IS CLE ARLY IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THIS WAS FURTHER AFFIRMED BY A SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF A COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S BRITISH WEAVING COMPANY V. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO.511/MDS/2009 DATED 12TH MARCH, 2010. P ARAS 2 TO 6 OF THIS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY:- 2 AS CLEAR FROM THE GROUNDS THE ISSUES CONCERNS D EPRECIATION ON WIND MILLS. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AV AILABLE AT HIGHER RATE FOR WIND MILL ON THE CIVIL WORK AS WELL AS ELE CTRICAL FILLINGS. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT FOR THE W IND MILL SUPPLIED BY NEG MION, NO BREAK UP OF COST WAS AVAILABLE FROM THEIR INVOICE. ACCORDING TO HIM, ON ELECTRICAL FITTINGS DEPRECIATI ON COULD BE ALLOWED ONLY AT 7.5%. VALUE OF ELECTRICAL FITTING WAS ESTIM ATED AT RS.40 LAKHS. RESULT WAS THAT THERE WAS A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 LA KH ON DEPRECIATION. ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) W AS UNSUCCESSFUL. 3. NOW BEFORE US THE LD. AR, RELYING ON A CO-ORDINA TE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.ASIAN HANDLOOM VS. DCIT :-8-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 (ITA NO.2291/MDS/2008 DT.20.11.09) ARGUED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE ON DEPRECIATION WAS UNCALLED FOR. PER CONTRA THE LD . DR RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NESTLE INDIA LTD., VS. DCIT 111 TTJ 498 SUBMITTED, THAT IF FUNCTIONAL TEST WAS APPLIED, ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION COULD NOT BE T REATED ON PAR WITH A WINDMILL, FOR GRANTING HIGH DEPRECIATION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. TREATMENT O F CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON A WINDMILL INSTALLATION HAS BEEN DE ALT WITH AT PARA 12 OF THE ORDER OF THIS CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF ASIAN HANDLOOM VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND THIS IS REPRODU CED HEREUNDER. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT A WIND MILL IS AN APPARATUS THAT HARNESSES WIND POWER, FOR A VARIETY OF USES LIKE PUMPING WATER, DRIVING OF SAW MILL, GRIND ING CONE AND/OR DRIVING ELECTRICAL TURBINES. A TYPICAL WIND MILL, AS INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS OF SUZ LON CORPORATION, WOULD CONSIST OF A SPECIALIZED FOUNDAT ION, ON WHICH THE WIND BLADES ARE ATTACHED THROUGH A POS T. THE BLADES CONNECTED IN THE TOP IS A REVOLVING APPARATUS TO WHICH DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF ARMS ARE ATTACHED. WHEN IT IS USED FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY THESE ARE CALLED WIND TURBINES AND SERVES AS A SIGNIFICAN T SOURCE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY. BEING A NONCONVENTIONA L SOURCE OF ENERGY WITH RENEWABLE INPUTS AND WHICH IS NATURE FRIENDLY, WORLD OVER, WINDMILLS HAVE BEEN GI VEN SPECIAL STATUS, IMPORTANCE AND ENCOURAGEMENT. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT FOR A WINDMILL TO BE SUSTAINABLE IT H AS TO BE ERECTED IN A PLACE WHERE SUSTAINABLE WIND FLOW I S AVAILABLE WITH A LAND SUITABLE TO A FOUNDATION ON W HICH, A STRUCTURE STRONG ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND A POWERFUL THRUST OF AIR AT ANY POINT OF TIME. SPECIALIZED FOU NDATION :-9-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 AND SPECIALIZED AREA SPECIFICALLY EAR-MARKED TO FAC ILITATE A FLOW OF WIND WITHOUT HINDRANCE, AND SPECIALIZED ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND HIGH TENSION LINES ARE ALL BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR A WIND MILL PLANT. NONE OF THESE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING THE PREMISES CAN BE SEEN DETACHED FROM WHAT IS CALLED A WINDMILL SINCE A W IND MILL TO WORK THESE ARE ESSENTIAL. ALL THESE ARE NEC ESSARY INPUTS GOING INTO ULTIMATE COST OF SUCH WIND MILL. THE FOUNDATION STRUCTURE OR THE SPECIALLY DEMARCATED APPURTENANT THERETO CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EQUIVAL ENT TO A HOTEL OR A CINEMA BUILDING WHICH IS ADJUNCT TO CARRYING ON A HOTEL BUSINESS OR THEATRE BUSINESS. O N THE OTHER HAND THESE CAN BE DEEMED ONLY A PART OF A WINDMILL FOR HARNESSING WIND ENERGY. IN COMING TO T HIS CONCLUSION WE ARE FORTIFIED BY DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KARNATAK A POWER CORPORATION (247 ITR 268) WHERE IT WAS HELD T HAT WHETHER A THE BUILDING CAN BE TREATED AS A PLANT WA S A QUESTION OF FACT AND WHEN IT IS FOUND AS A FACT THA T THE BUILDING HAS BEEN SO PLANNED AND CONSTRUCTED AS TO SERVE THE ASSESSEES SPECIAL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT, IT WOULD QUALIFY TO BE TREATED AS A PLANT. IN OUR OPIN ION, THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE LAND AND FOUNDATION SPECIALLY INCURRED WITH A VIEW TO SERVE THE TECHNIC AL REQUIREMENTS WOULD ALSO BECOME A PART OF THE PLANT IN A CASE THAT OF A WIND MILL. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HERDILIA CHEMICALS (216 ITR 742), HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT HUGE LAND MEASURING 360 ACRES TAKEN ON EASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ERECTION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY WHERE THE ENTIRE FACTORY WAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THIS LAND AND EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE :-10-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 FOUNDATION MEANT FOR FIXING THE MACHINERY AND FOR T HE PURPOSE OF LEVELING THE LAND, FORMED A PART OF THE COST OF THE PLANT. IF WE LOOK AT APPENDIX I TO THE INCOM E-TAX RULES, PRESCRIBING THE RATES OF DEPRECIATION, IT CA N BE SEEN THAT LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN HIGHER DEPRECIATION RATE OF 80% ON ANTI-POLLUTION DEVICES, ENERGY SAVING AND RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES. APPARENTLY, THESE HIGHER RATE HAVE BEEN GIVEN NOT SOLELY FOR OFF-SETTING THE IMPAIRMENT IN VALUE OF SUCH ASSETS ON ACCOUNT OF US E BUT ALSO TO ENCOURAGE SUCH ENTREPRENEUAL VENTURES WHICH RESULTS IN ENERGY SAVINGS OR UTILIZATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, OR PREVENTION OF POLLUTIO N. IF A VERY LIMITED MEANING IS GIVEN TO THESE TERMS USED IN APPENDIX I OF THE I.T. RULES, IT WOULD DEFEAT THE V ERY PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH ENHANCED DEPRECIATION WAS PROVIDED FOR. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED IN THE MA NNER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 1,17,00,000/-, 13 LAKHS, 23,51,576/- AND RS. 5,73,824/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM STANDS CANCELLED. GROUND NOS. 5 TO 19 OF THE ASSESSEE STAN D ALLOWED. 5. AS FOR THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH IN NESTLE IND IA LTD.S CASE (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR, IT WAS REGARDING A CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON UPS ATTACHED T O A COMPUTER AND HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER ON FACTS HERE. 6. WE, THEREFORE, HAVE NO HESITATION TO QUASH THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION MADE. SUCH DISALLOWANC E STANDS DELETED. :-11-: I.T.A. NO.2908/MDS/2016 8. HENCE WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE ASS ESSEES CONCERNED WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION ON WINDMIL LS INCLUDING CIVIL WORK AND ELECTRICAL FITTINGS. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ACCORDINGLY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THESE FACTS AND DISC USSED ELABORATELY ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND UPHELD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 4 TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 4 TH MAY, 2017. JPV ' *#23 43 /COPY TO: 1. &/ APPELLANT 2. *+& /RESPONDENT 3. 5 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 5 /CIT 5. 3 *## /DR 6. 9 /GF