Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central),Pune v. Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (Huf

(Private Secretary) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Pune..Appellant Versus Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (HUF) ..Respondent ................... Mr. Shyam Walve for the Appellant Mr. Shyam Walve for the Appellant Mr. Nitesh Joshi i/by Mr. Atul Jasani for the Respondent................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : JUNE 3, 2019. P.C.: 1.The appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge thejudgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench(“the Tribunal” for short) dated 28.10.2016. Followingquestion is presented for our consideration:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of additionaldepreciation on windmills of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11, when the Financial Bill 2012 envisaged allowance of initialdepreciation w.e.f. 2013-14 and subsequent years?” 2. Learned counsel for the parties pointed out that theidentical issue came up for consideration before this Court inIncome Tax Appeal No. 275 of 2017 filed by the Revenueagainst the group concern of the present assessee. TheCourt while dismissing the Revenue’s appeal, against thejudgment of the Tribunal which has been relied upon in thepresent case, had made following observations:- “3.The second question pertains to the assessee’s claim ofadditional depreciation of installation of windmill in terms ofSection 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee raised twocontentions. One that the assessee being engaged inmanufacture of articles and things, such additionaldepreciation would be admissible, whether the installation ofplant and machinery was in connection with such business ornot. Secondly, according to the Revenue, generation ofelectricity amounts to production of goods.additional depreciation of installation of windmill in terms ofSection 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee raised twocontentions. One that the assessee being engaged inmanufacture of articles and things, such additionaldepreciation would be admissible, whether the installation ofplant and machinery was in connection with such business ornot. Secondly, according to the Revenue, generation ofelectricity amounts to production of goods. 4.Learned counsel for the assessee correctly pointed out thatthe Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of SalesTax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore Vs. Madhya PradeshElectricity Board, Jabalpur[1] has held that electricity is goodswithin the meaning of the Sales Tax Act and the Excise Act.We do not find any reason to interfere with the view of theTribunal. We make it clear that we have not examined the firstcontention of the assessee in this respect namely additionaldepreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) would be available oninstallation of new plant and machinery, whether the same isfor the purpose of assessee’s manufacturing business as longthe Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of SalesTax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore Vs. Madhya PradeshElectricity Board, Jabalpur[1] has held that electricity is goodswithin the meaning of the Sales Tax Act and the Excise Act.We do not find any reason to interfere with the view of theTribunal. We make it clear that we have not examined the firstcontention of the assessee in this respect namely additionaldepreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) would be available oninstallation of new plant and machinery, whether the same isfor the purpose of assessee’s manufacturing business as long as the assessee is engaged in such activity.” 3.In the result, this appeal is dismissed. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]