ACIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S CLEAN WIND POWER(MANVI) PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3424/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) ACIT Vs. M/s. Clean Wind Power Circle – 4(2) (Manvi) Pvt. Ltd. 201, 3rd Floor, Phase – III, New Delhi - 02 Okhla Industrial Estate New Delhi-110020 PAN No. AAACS 2437 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 03.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 03.08.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi [‘CIT(A)/NFAC’ in short] dated 22.01.2026 arising from the assessment order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the NFAC, Income Tax Department under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.

ITA No. 3424/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2018-19] ACIT vs. Clean Wind Power (Manvi) Pvt. Ltd. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under : 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to treat the electrical installations as part of "Plant and Machinery" and to allow depreciation at the applicable rate, ignoring the fact that the assessee had consistently classified such electrical installations under the block of "Furniture and Fittings" in earlier assessment years and had claimed depreciation at the rate of 10%, and that the reclassification made during the year under consideration was arbitrary and not supported by any substantive change in the nature or usage of the assets. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee by relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for earlier AYs, without appreciating that the Department has not accepted the said decisions and has already filed further appeals against the ITAT orders for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, and therefore the issue relating to allowability of higher depreciation on electrical installations has not attained finality. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal, at the time hearing.”

ITA No. 3424/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2018-19] ACIT vs. Clean Wind Power (Manvi) Pvt. Ltd. on deemed total income at Rs.7,89,88,859/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices were issued and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.684,92,992/- (Rs.9,92,10,009/- - Rs.307,17,017/-) and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who deleted the addition. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. At the time of hearing ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the CIT(A)/NFAC has followed the order of ITAT for A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 in its own case for A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17 where the Hon. Tribunal has held that Electric Installation is to be considered as plant and machinery and eligible for depreciation @15%. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short and solitary issue is that whether the electrical installations of the WindMill be treated as part of "Plant and Machinery" eligible for depreciation at the rate of 15%, or it is part of the block of "Furniture and Fittings", as treated by assessee itself in earlier assessment years on which depreciation is allowed at the rate of 10%. We find that the ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA 4568- Page 3 of 7

ITA No. 3424/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2018-19] ACIT vs. Clean Wind Power (Manvi) Pvt. Ltd. 4569/Del/2019 vide order dated 21.09.2023 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The coordinate bench of ITAT has held as under: 5. Giving thoughtful consideration to the issue and the judgments Id. AR has relied, there appears to be no doubt that the issue has been thoroughly examined and consistently determined in favour of the assessee. It will be relevant to reproduce the findings in CIT vs. CTR Manufacturing Industries (supra), as below: "5. Being aggrieved, both the appellant revenue as well as the Respondent-assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order negatived the appeal of the Revenue by holding that the items listed at (a) to (d) in paragraph (3) above were necessary parts for a Windmill and supported generation of power. Thus, upheld the order dated 10th February, 2011 of the CIT(A) allowing depreciation @80% on the aforesaid items at (a) to (d) of paragraph(3) above. So far as the appeal of the Assessee with regard to other expenditure at items (e) to (h) in paragraph(3) is concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the Respondent-assessee's appeal holding that the items (e) to (h) above relate to setting up of Windmill and consequently depreciation @80% is allowed. However, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose finding out the costs thereof which are allocable to the Windmill for the purpose of computing depreciation only on the amounts so quantified on allocation. So far as civil foundation listed at item (i) in paragraph(3) above is concerned, the impugned order of the Tribunal follows the decision of this Court.********* The case of the Commissioner of Income Tax-ill, Pune vis Cooper Foundary Pvt Ltd.(Income Tax Appeal No. 1326 of 2010 rendered on 14th June, 2011), wherein the depreciation in respect of civil foundation was allowed @80%. 6. The Revenue being aggrieved with the impugned order of the Tribunal is in appeal before us raising the two questions for our consideration. 7. Regarding Question (1) (a) We find both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that the items listed at (a) to (d) in paragraph(3) above form an integral part of the Windmill. Thus, entitled to 80% depreciation being a part of a Windmill. Admittedly, this very question arose before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s M/s Eastman Impex being Income Tax Appeal No.350 of 2013 decided on 18th December, 2014 wherein an identical question arose and following the decisions of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s K. K. Enterprises (108

Page 4 of 7

ITA No. 3424/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2018-19] ACIT vs. Clean Wind Power (Manvi) Pvt. Ltd. DTR 109) allowed the claim of depreciation made by the Assessee therein similar to one made here. (b) Moreover, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Eastman Impex(supra) also refers to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Trumac Engineering Co Pvt Ltd Mumbai v/s Income Tax Officer (Income Tax Appeal No. 555/Mum/2003 rendered on 27th June, 2008) wherein an identical issue has arisen and the assessee's claim therein for depreciation 100% (as in A. Y. 1996-97) was allowed. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Revenue very fairly states that no appeal has been filed by the Revenue from the decision of the Tribunal in Trumac Engineering Co Pvt Ltd (supra), as the same has been accepted. (c) We find that there are concurrent finding of fact with regard to the nature of function rendered by the items listed at items (a) to (d) in paragraph (3) above in the Windmill in the orders of the CIT(A) and the impugned order of the Tribunal which are not shown to be perverse. This coupled with the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court i.e. Eastman Impextsupra) and the decision of the Tribunal in Trumac Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd(supra) which has been accepted by the Revenue and no distinguishing features are shown to us. Question No.(1) as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not admitted. 8. Regarding Question (2) (a) It is agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Cooper Foundary Pvt Ltd (supra) i.e. the cost of civil foundation is to be allowed depreciation @80%. (b) In the above view, Question No.2 as formulated does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained." 6. Further co-ordinate Bench in the case of Clean Wind Power (Ratlam P. Ltd.) vide ITA No. 351/Del/2021 order dated 17/08/2022 has dealt with the issue of Civil Structure being part of Wind mill for depreciation and dismissed the appeal of Revenue by observing that the Civil Structure is part of composite structure of the Wind-mill and therefore, can be seen in Isolation. 7. However, in regard to ground no. 3 ITA no. 4568, Ld. AR has conceded that as with regard to the land, the claim of depreciation is not sustainable. 8. In the light of aforesaid, the orders of Ld. Tax Authorities below qua ground no. 1 and 2 in both the appeals are set aside by sustaining the grounds. Ground no. 3 in ITA no. 4568/Del/2019 is decided against the assessee and the remaining grounds become superfluous. The appeals of Page 5 of 7

ITA No. 3424/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2018-19] ACIT vs. Clean Wind Power (Manvi) Pvt. Ltd. assessee are allowed which consequences to follow as per the determination of issue above. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2023. 9. We find that the ITAT has already decided the issue of depreciation on electrical installation, in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17, in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the Electric Installation is part of plant and machinery, eligible for depreciation @15%. The ground is dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.3424/Del/2026 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 17.08.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 6 of 7