Criteria for claiming 100% depreciation on assets, under the Income Tax Act


Quick Summary
This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruling addresses a company's claim for 100% depreciation on a windmill. The revenue authority argued that the windmill was not used for the required 180 days in the financial year, making the full depreciation claim invalid. The tribunal reviewed evidence presented by the assessee regarding the windmill's usage during the assessment period.

Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 31/05/2019 which has invalidated the reassessment proceedings as initiated by Ld. AO for the year under consideration.

Citation :
I.T.A. No.5227/Mum/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“D” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND
HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

I.T.A. No.5227/Mum/2019
Assessment Year: 2012-13)

DCIT-5(2)(2)
5th Floor, 571, Aaykar Bhawan
M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020
PAN No. : AABCG-4831-B
Appellant)

Vs.

M/s Morries Energy Limited
11-A, Embassy Apartments
46, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai-36
Respondent)

Assessee by : Ms. Poonam Agnihotri – Ld. AR
Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Joshi– Ld. Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 25/05/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 01/06/2021 

O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 31/05/2019 which has invalidated the reassessment proceedings as initiated by Ld. AO for the year under consideration.

2. After hearing rival arguments, our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 

3.1 The material facts are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in power generation, real estate, securities etc. was subjected to reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration and an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 15/12/2017. The return of income was already scrutinized u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28/03/2015. However, the case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 dated 31/03/2017. The reason to trigger reassessment was that the assessee claimed depreciation of 100% on windmill having capacity of 1.25 mw which was so eligible only if the windmill was put to use for more than 180 days during the relevant previous year. Since the windmill was put to use for less than 180 days, the assessee was not eligible to claim the depreciation and accordingly, there was excess depreciation claim for Rs.125.69 Lacs.

3.2 The assessee while opposing the reassessment proceedings, submitted that the windmill was out to use for more than 180 days and the claim was rightly made and allowed. This aspect was already examined by Ld. AO during scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and the claim was allowed with due application of mind. However, rejecting the same and after appreciating assessee’s documentary evidences, Ld.AO opined that the assessee was entitled to 50% rate of depreciation only on these assets. Accordingly, the assessed loss was reduced with the alleged excess claim.

4. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee assailed reassessment proceedings by submitting that requisite details, as well as documentary evidence, etc. with respect to depreciation claim, were duly submitted during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The same was duly verified and accepted by Ld. AO with due application of mind.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The appeal concerns whether the assessee was eligible for 100% depreciation on a windmill, as the revenue authority claimed it was not used for the minimum 180 days required.

The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on a 1.25 MW windmill, stating it was put to use for more than 180 days during the relevant financial year.

The revenue authority believed the windmill was used for less than 180 days, meaning the assessee was only entitled to 50% depreciation, not 100%.

During the original scrutiny assessment, the assessee's claim for 100% depreciation was examined and allowed by the Assessing Officer.

Reassessment proceedings were initiated because the revenue authority believed the assessee had made an excess depreciation claim due to the windmill not meeting the 180-day usage rule.

 
downloaded 220 times



Judgement posted by

Guest

Comments




CCI Pro



Company
08 October 2026
Account Executive

Elite Taxation

New Delhi

CA Foundation

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 23 October 2026
Articled Trainee

J Y & CO

Hyderabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 25 October 2026
Article Intern (CA Articleship)

Arpan Bohra & Co

Hyderabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 20 October 2026
CA ARTICLE

AMKN & CO

Noida

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 22 October 2026
Articleship intern

Srinath Manikanta

Hyderabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
30 October 2026
Asst Manager Accounts

Goodwin Pumps India Pvt Ltd

Chengalpattu

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 29 October 2026
Article Assistant (CA Inter / CMA Inter) - Thrissur

Varma Raja & Associates

Thrissur

CA Inter

View Details
Company
Featured ARTICLESHIP 28 October 2026
CA- Inter and Articles

N N V Satish & Co.,

Hyderabad

CA Inter

View Details