COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. EASTMAN IMPEX

JUDGEMENT

(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: -

(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%.

(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%.