Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) BY way of this order, we shall dispose of ITA No. 350 of 2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Ludhiana Vs. M/s. Eastman Impex), ITA No. 349 of 2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Ludhiana Vs. M/s. Eastman Impex), ITA No. 98 of 2014 (Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Ludhiana Vs. M/s. Eastman International), ITA No. 99 of 2014 (Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Ludhiana Vs. M/s. Eastman International) and ITA No. 167 of 2014 (Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Ludhiana Vs. M/s. Maxwell Inc.) pertaining to differently worded substantial questions of law but relating to the same questions. The substantial questions of law framed in ITA No. 350 of 2013 are as follows: - "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law, in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein disallowance of higher depreciation @ 80% on account of expenditure on installation of electrical line for power transmission and metering treated as not part of wind mill by the A.O., was deleted by the CIT(A)., ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in treating the Power evacuation infrastructure as part of wind mill and as Renewable Energy Device whereas the AO has brought on record sufficient material to prove that same was in fact not a Renewable Energy Device. iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in treating the electrical lines for power transmission and metering as part of Renewable Energy Device eligible for depreciation @ 80% whereas the A.O. has brought on record sufficient material to prove that the transmission and distribution network was actually Plant and Machinery which is eligible only for normal rates of depreciation @ 15%. It is by no stretch of imagination a part of the power generation Wind Mill Device. It's only function is the transmission of the generated power to the common grid."
(2.) COUNSEL for the revenue submits that by treating power of evacuation infrastructure as part of wind mill a renewable energy device, the Tribunal has ignored the material collected and referred to by the Assessing Officer which clearly proves that power evacuation infrastructure like electricity lines etc. are not part of the wind mill and, therefore, should invite depreciation @15%. Counsel for the revenue further submits that though it is true that if power transmission lines etc. are part of a renewable energy device they as eligible to depreciation @ 80% but there is no evidence on record that transmission and distribution network etc. are an integral part of the wind mill. The Tribunal has erred in granting depreciation @ 80%. Counsel for the assessee, however, submits that power of evacuation infrastructure like electric lines etc. are specifically dedicated to the wind mill and cannot be used for any other purpose. The power evacuation infrastructure being integral and necessary for the wind mill to transmit electricity are integral to the renewable energy device and, therefore, depreciation @ 80% has been rightly allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as by the CIT(A). Counsel for the assessee relies upon a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.K. Enterprises, (2014) 108 DTR Judgments 109, and a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench in Trumac Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Mumbai.
(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties, perused the entire paper book including orders passed by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the ITAT (B), Chandigarh. The dispute that has given rise to these substantial questions of law is the nature of power evacuation infrastructure attached to a wind mill, a renewable energy device and whether this infrastructure would be eligible for depreciation @ 80% or 15%.;