In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 27.10.2014 Coram Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH Tax Case (Appeal) No.534 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore. .... Appellant Vs. M/s.Veejay Tool and Die Pvt. Ltd., No. 8, A.T.T. Colony, Coimbatore-641 018.Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act against order dated 04.01.2013 made in I.T.A.No.1578/Mds/2012 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. For Appellant : Mrs.Hemalatha Standing counsel for Income Tax JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) This Tax Case (Appeal) is filed by Revenue as against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether under facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that, assessee has satisfied requirement of second proviso to Rule 5(1A) of Income Tax Rules, and they are entitled for depreciation on windmills as per Appendix I is valid? 2 ii) Whether under facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in granting depreciation at 80% on windmills, even though proviso to section 32(1)(i) and Rule 5(1A) clearly stipulate that only rate of depreciation on method as provided for in Appendix I will be relevant for power generating Machinery? iii) Whether under facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in granting depreciation at 80% on windmills, even though assessee is entitled at rate of 7.69% of cost and this rate has correctly been allowed by assessing officer? iv) Whether under facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee is entitled for higher rate of depreciation even though assessee had filed return of income within due date and has also not exercised its option separately?" 2. issue involved in this Tax Case (Appeal) relates to claim of depreciation by assessee on installation of windmill, which according to Revenue is contrary to Rule 5(1A) Appendix 1A of Income Tax Rules. 3. Learned Standing counsel appearing for Revenue submits that above-said issue is covered by decision of this Court dated 09.09.2014 made in T.C.(A)Nos.330 of 2013 etc. batch. 3 4. In above-said decision, this Court, following decision of Bombay High Court reported in 229 ITR 772 (CIT V. Vijaya Hirasa Kalamkar (HUF), held as follows: "20. reading of above-said decision of Bombay High Court makes it clear that if assessee exercised option in terms of second proviso to Rule 5(1A) of Income Tax Rules at time of furnishing of return of income, it will suffice and no separate letter or request or intimation with regard to of exercise of option is required. Since returns are filed in accordance with Section 139(1) of Income Tax Act and form prescribed therein make provision for exercising option in respect of claim of depreciation, no separate procedure is required, as contended by Department. We are in agreement with reasoning of Tribunal. 21. Accordingly, question of law is answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue." 5. Following above-said decision of this Court, substantial questions of law raised are answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue and accordingly, this Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs. (R.S.,J) (R.K.,J) 27.10.2014 sl R.SUDHAKAR,J. 4 AND R.KARUPPIAH,J. sl To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-I(1), Coimbatore. T.C.(A) No.534 of 2014 27.10.2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore v. M/s. Veejay Tool and Die Pvt. Ltd