The AO disallowed the depreciation and additional depreciation on  the ground that the assessee did not generate electricity before the end of the assessment year, i. e., March 31, 2005 and what was generated was less than one unit, that the actual generation took place on March 31, 2004 and therefore, the windmill could not be stated to have been used by the assessee for the purpose of business. The assessee obtained a certificate dated April 2, 2005, from the competent authority, which showed that the assessee had effected supply of electricity to the Board on March 31, 2005. Further, a statement was recorded from the Executive Engineer, wherein he had stated that generation of electricity had not started but work was over. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in part and held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation, but rejected the claim for additional depreciation. Both the assessee and the Department filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim for depreciation and held that if the claim to depreciation had been rejected, the claim to additional depreciation should also be rejected.  On appeal the Court held that  even trial production machinery kept ready for use was considered to be used for the purpose of business to qualify for depreciation under S 32 . The Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim of depreciation on the windmill of the assessee and reversing the order passed by the CIT ( A) ( AY.2005-06)