DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD., NEW DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI BENCH: C BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 4273/DEL/2014 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITA 4429/DEL/2014 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. BSES RAJDHANI POWER DCIT LIMITED CIRCLE-3(1), Vs. BSES BHAWAN, NEHRU PLACE,, NEW DELHI-, DELHI NEW DELHI-110020, DELHI अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��थ� /Respondent/Cross-Appellant

PAN of Assessee: AAGCS3187H

Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Deepashree Rao, Adv. (Virtual) & Ms. Aayushi Pragya, AR ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR (Virtual)

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 09-Jul-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 07-Oct-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeal and cross-appeals ie., ITA Nos. 4273 & 4429/Del/2014 for assessment year 2010-11, against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-VI (for short, “CIT(A)”), New Delhi’s order dated 30.05.2014 passed in case No. 189/13-14, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that appellant acquired legal right to receive income on account of late payment surcharge and theft billing, without appreciating that such amounts did not represent 'real' income taxable under the provisions of the Act. 2.2 That the CIT(A) erred in holding that the theory of real income could not be extended to exclude income which had accrued but suffered from high improbability of recovery. 2.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that additions made by the assessing officer were, in any case, revenue neutral and conseqüently, there was no reason to interfere/ tinker with the consistent method of accounting followed by the appellant. 2.4 Without prejudice, that the CITIA) erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to exclude LPSC charged in the bills of the earlier year(s), but offered for taxation during the year under consideration on the basis of realization/acceptance. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making an addition of Rs.58,74,00,000/- on account of barter transactions of power.

3.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the Impugned amount represented income in the hands of the appellant under section 2(24) r.w.s 28(iv) of the Act. without appreciating that barter transactions were cash neutral involving no cash receipt/payment at the time of storing/withdrawing electricity. 3.2 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in adopting average rate for retail sale of power to consumers for computing sales as against the average rate of bulk sale of power claimed in the alternative, by the appellant. 4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to exclude the amount of regulatory assets amounting to Rs.8.27,79,00,000/-. credited to the profit and loss account and mistakenly offered to tax by the appellant in the return of income for the relevant assessment year. 4.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that since the appellant acquired enforceable legal right to receive the aforesaid amount of Rs.827.79 crores on basis of true up order passed by the DERC and had credited the same in the profit and loss account, the said amount was taxable as income of the appellant. 4.2 The CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that no legal right to receive vested in the appellant in the absence of tariff order passed by the DERC. 4.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that real income had accrued to the appellant since the appellant was not permitted to raise bills on consumers in respect of the said amount and no bills were, infact, raised. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.72.16.42.513/- made by the assessing officer on account of unbilled revenue. 5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that method of accounting for unbilled revenue followed by the appellant on basis of last month's bill was scientific and rational and also accepted by the special auditor. 5.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the addition made to the income of relevant financial year by tinkering with the scientific method of accounting consistently followed by the appellant was revenue neutral. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. Rs.21.66.74.952/-made by the assessing officer on account of short capitalization of personnel cost and overheads to the value of assets.

6.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in alleging that personnel cost should be capitalized 10% of employee cost as per the directives of DERC, without appreciating that method adopted by the appellant was scientific and based on rational approach. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2.27.92,452 made by the assessing officer u/s 40(a)(ia) for alleged non deduction of tax at source under section 194J of the Act in respect of trading margin paid to RETL and BYPL. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not allowing deduction u/s 801A(4)(iv)(c) claimed by the appellant. 8.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that deduction under section 801A could not be allowed since the appellant failed to claim the deduction in the return of income as required in terms of section 80A(5) of the Act. 8.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the deduction u/s 801A cannot be claimed on miscellaneous incomes viz maintenance charges, replacement of burnt meters. commission arrears, Inspection fees, reconnection fees, late payment surcharge, income from use of electric poles, subsidy etc. without appreciating that the same were intricately linked to the eligible business of distribution of electricity. 10. The appellant reserves to itself. the right to add, alter, amend. substitute and/or withdraw any Ground(s) of Appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. The Revenue cross appeal ITA No. 4429/Del/ on the other hand canvasses the following substantive grounds:

“ ` 4. The assessee submits at the outset that it does not wish to press for its substantive ground No. 1 to 1.3 subject to all just exceptions. Rejected in very terms.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

“”

The Revenue’s 3rd substantive ground raised in the instant appeal is that the learned 24. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the bad debt disallowance of Rs. 72,24,36,602/- made in the Assessing Officer’s assessment order. We notice herein as well that the Assessing Officer had rejected the assessee’s impugned claim on the ground that it had failed to establish the same as having become actually bad which could no more be held sustainable as per TRF Limited vs CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC). This is what made the learned CIT(A) to delete the impugned disallowance which hardly deserves to be interfered with. This Revenue’s instant third substantive ground is rejected accordingly.

Next comes the Revenue’s 4th substantive ground that the learned CIT(A) has erred in 25. law and on facts in deleting section 41(1) cessation of liability addition of Rs. 4,30,82,719/- made in the assessment order. We notice herein as well with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this is not even the learned Assessing Officer’s allegation in the assessment order that it was an instance of actual cessation of liability so as to trigger section 41((1) addition held mandatory in Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC). We thus find no reason to disturb the learned CIT(A) deleting section 41(1) addition in the assessee’s case. The Revenue’s 4th substantive ground is hereby rejected therefore.

The Revenue’s 5th substantive ground raised herein is that the learned CIT(A) has erred 26. in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 9,43,99,00,000/- on the issue of income recoverable from future tariff ignoring the fact that income as well as right to receive the same had duly accrued to the assessee. Both the parties very fairly inform us that the same is very much related to the assessee’s substantive ground nos. 4 to 4.3 which already stand decided against the department. We draw the very analogy herein to conclude that the learned CIT(A) has rightly held the impugned future tariff income as not having accrued to the assessee as its taxable income in very terms. Rejected accordingly.

The Revenue’s, 7th , 10th , and 11th substantive grounds raising as many connected issues 28. of disallowance/addition of consumer security deposits, service line deposits, and consumer's contribution to capital works; involving varying sums, as held taxable in the Assessing Officer's assessment order reversed in the lower appellate discussion. We are informed during the course of hearing that these tribunal’s earlier learned co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s appeal pertaining to assessment years 2005-06 & 2008-09 has already decided the very issue(s) against the department thereby observing that such items could not be held as revenue in nature leading to assessment thereof as its corresponding taxable income. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court also appears to have upheld the same as per the assessee’s written synopsis filed before us. We thus adopt judicial consistency to uphold the learned CIT(A)’s impugned findings on all these three substantive grounds i.e., Nos. 7, 10 and 11 in very terms.

The Revenue’s 8th substantive ground raised in the instant appeal seeks to revive the 29. Assessing Officer's action adding the assessee’s unmatched security deposits of Rs. 12,36,00,000/- as its taxable income, which stands reversed in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion; reading as under: “5.15.1 It is contended that the AO has.erred in making the addition of Rs. 12,36,00,000/- on account of unmatched consumer security deposit.

5.15.2 The AO noticed from the perusal of discussions under TOR-9 of Special Audit Report that there is a unmatched consumer Security Deposit (CDS) amounting to Rs.54.51 crores as per financial books and the database in respect of pre privatization (DVB) period, ie. Out of the total amount of consumer security deposit of Rs.372.37 crores, consumer wise details in respect of security deposit of Rs.317.86 haye been available, leading to a gap of Rs.54.51 crores, out of which due to reconciliation/matching with the consumer data base, the outstanding amount that remained as on 31.03.2013 Was Rs.12.36 crores, that was added by the AO to the Total Income of the assessee.

5.15.3 The appellant has however submitted that is has been in the process of completing the reconciliation done for the CSD amount and there is no justification for adding the said amount of CSD to taxable amount, as the company is liable to pay the said amounts to the consumers on disconnection. Moreover, the said amount has not been written back by the appellant so as to tax the same as income for the relevant year in term of section 41(1) of the Act.

5.15.41 tend to agree with the appellant that since the appellant had duly recognized the said amount as liability in the books of account and as the same has not been written back so as to tax the same as income u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of remission or cessation of liability no addition could be made. The appellant gets relief on this ground of appeal.”

The outcome of the Revenue's 9th substantive ground raised in the instant appeal that 31. the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officers' action making addition of Rs. 77,09,00,000/- representing the assessee’s unmatched consumer security deposits also is no different as the matter is still stated to be pending before hon’ble jurisdictional high court claiming the above security deposits as well as interest expenditure thereupon. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the case records indicating the assessee to have filed its writ petition no. 2396/2006 before hon’ble jurisdictional high court seeking directions to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for transfer of additional funds pertaining to the consumer security deposits of the pre-privatization part followed by their lordship’s directions on 26.3.2008. We are accordingly of the considered view that given the fact that as the matter is yet to attain finality, the impugned addition amount could not be held as taxable in the assessee’s hands as rightly held in the CIT(A)’s order. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant 9th substantive ground as well in very times.

The revenues 12th substantive ground raised in the instant appeal is that the Assessing 32. Officer had rightly treated the assessee’s cash credits of Rs. 25,00,69,778/- as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act which have been wrongly deleted in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion; reading as under: “5.18.1 It is contended that the AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.25,00,69,778/- to the total income as unexplained cash credit.

5.18.2 The AO based on the finding of the special auditor under TOR 12 of the Special Audit Report asked the assessee to furnish confirmation from its Sundry Creditors. Further, notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were also issued to certain parties mostly in the public sector or even the public authorities requiring them to provide details opening and closing balances and the assessee was asked to reconcile in case of any difference. Replies from all the concerns were received except for two parties namely M/s Delhi Transco Ltd. & M/s Delhi Transco Limited SLDC. Since the confirmation was neither received direct from the said companies nor received through the assessee the AO added the sum u/s 68 of the Act, to the total income of the assessee. A minor variation in the closing balance was also added for difference in reconciliation of Rs.8512/- in the case of M/s Lenco Electric Utility another government concern.

5.18.3 The appellant however contended the additions are on account of inon feceipt of confirmations u/s 133(6) from M/s Delhi Transco Ltd. (DTL) and M/s Delhi Transco Ltd. SLDC (DTL-SLDC) in respect of their outstanding balances at the year end of Rs.12,80,70,280/- and Rs. 12,09,90,986/-respectively, which were in the nature of current balances and were in respect of Government Companies, namely M/s DTL, involved in providing power transmission services to the company and M/s DTL-SLDC, involved in supply of Ul power. Therefore, their identity, capacity or creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted and moreover, the appellant has filed a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act, before the AO for subsequent filing of such confirmation. Citing ratio of decisions of a number of court pronouncements in its favour, that appellant has sought the deletions of the said addition of Rs.25,00,61,266/.

5.18.4 Under section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previsous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered is not satisfactory, the sum so credited maybe charged as income of the assessee for that previous year. For the purpose of avoiding the applicability of section 68 the initial burden is on the assesse to prove that; a) the identity of the creditor is established b) the capacity of the creditor is beyond doubt c) the transaction is genuine Further, u/s of the 68 onus is on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors as held in CIT vs V.P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). Once the asseseee fulfills this burden, it is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of money of his creditors or the genuineness of the transaction, which took place between the creditors and sub creditor or the creditworthiness of the sub creditor as held in Nemi Chand Kothari V. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gau); Bansrsi Prasad V CIT (2008) 304 ITR 239 (All). In the instant case the creditors of the assessee company were Government Companies and moreover they have subsequently furnished confirmations. I have no reason to doubt that the appellant has not discharged it initial burden u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore additions made u/s 68 of the Act are liable to be deleted except for the minor variation, as stated above.”

The Revenue’s 13th substantive ground raised in the instant appeal pleads that the 34. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer section disallowing/holding the assessee’s provision for retirement of fixed assets amounting to Rs. 7,70,97,594/- in question. That being the case, the assessee invites our attention to para 5.20.4 in the learned CIT(A) order that it had itself added back in that amount of provision debited in in its P&L account of Rs. 14,48, 33,501/- to the taxable income with results in double addition; reading as under: “5.20.1 It is contended that the AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.7,70,97,594/- on account of provision for retirement of fixed assets. 5.20.2 The AO noticed from perusal of TOR-14 of the Special Audit Report that in respect of asset discarded, demolished, destroyed during the year, only the scrap value of the assets was reduced from the Written Down Value of the assts, while working out the depreciation but from the perusal of the working of depreciation as per Income Tax Act and computation of taxable Act income, the assessee had not reduced the sale value of scrap sold from the WDV but the same had been reduced from provision 'for retirement of fixed assets. On being asked, the assessee replied that during the year, a provision for retirement of fixed assets was made of an amount of Rs.21,18,74,887/- in the P&L Account. Further, the assessee sold scrap for a sum of Rs.6,70,41,386/- relating to the asset in respect of which the provisions for retirement of fixed assets was created and the said amount of scrap sale was credited to Profit & Loss Account and infact, there was the net provision for the retirement of fixed assets amounting to Rs.14,48,33,501/- and the above net provision was added back in the computation of income by the assessee itself, in respect of provision for retirement of fixed assets and therefore, a sum of Rs.1,00,56,208/- in respect of disallowance due to such excess depreciation claimed and Rs.6,70,41,386/- for disallowance under the computation of book profit was added by the AO, that pertains to sale proceeds of assets that were credited to P&L Account but reduced from the amount of provision added back.

5.20.3 The appellant was therefore, of the view that from of the point of View of Income Tax, there are separate provisions of fixed assets which require the sale proceeds to be reduced from the relevant block of assets resulting in lesser allowance of depreciation and therefore, the addition of Rs.6,70,41,386/- made twice would lead to double disallowance, as such scrap sale is not in the nature of revenue receipt but is a capital receipt which is required to be reduced from the plant & Machinery resulting in lower depreciation of Rs.1,00,56,208/-. The appellant, while computing the depreciation u/s 32 of the Act, however erroneously did not reduce scrap sales aggregating to Rs.6,70,41,386/- from the written down value of the relevant block of fixed assets and scrap being on capital account, were required to be adjusted being on capital account, were required to be adjusted from the Written Down Value (WDV) of the relevant block of assets and hence depreciation of Rs. 1,00,56,208/- claimed by the appellant was offered for tax during the course of assessment but the AO without judiciously appreciating the facts, made an addition of Rs.7,70,97,594/- on account of excess claim of depreciation of Rs.1,00,56,208/- and scrap sales of Rs.6,70,41,386/-. Effectively, the appellant stated that it had added back the entire provision of Rs.21,18,74,887/- while computing the taxable income. In any case, Rs.6,60,41,386/- represented scrap sales that was required to be reduced from the WDV of the relevant block i.e from the provision made for the retirement of fixed asset on which depreciation is required to be allowed, due to the following accounting treatment by the Assessee.

Provision for retirement of fixed assets: Rs.21,18,74,887/- Less: Scrap Sales credited to P&L A/c and required To be adjusted against WDV of that block Rs. 6,70,41,386/- Net Amount debited to P&L A/c (As added back Rs. 14,48,33,501/- In computation of Income.

5.20.4 The contention of the appellant is found to be legally and factually tenable as the appellant had itself added back the net amount of provision debited in its P&L Account of Rs.14,48,33,501/- to the taxable income, in the computation of income and offered for taxation and the scrap sales have been reduced from the WDV of the relevant block and excess depreciation of Rs.1,00,86,208/- offered for taxation during the course of assessment. Therefore, the AO is hereby directed to delete the said addition resulting in double disallowance. Appellant to get relief on this ground of appeal.”

We thus find no reason to interfere with CIT(A)’s above extracted detailed discussion, deleting the impugned addition made in the assessee’s hands.

The Revenue’s 14th substantive ground in the instant appeal is that the learned CIT(A) 35. has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action invoking section 40A(2) disallowance of Rs. 9,42,842/- involving the assessee’s expenditure payments made to its twin related parties i.e., M/s BSES Yamuna Power Limited and Delhi Power Company Limited. Suffice to say, we are of the considered view not only in light of the CBDT’s landmark circular issued wayback on 06.07.1968 that the impugned disallowance does not apply in an instance of involving both the payer and the payee getting assessed at the same rate but also CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bom) has settled the issue against the department in very terms. We thus uphold the learned CIT(A) lower appellate discussion deleting the impugned section 40A(2) disallowance. The Revenue fails in its instant 14th substantive ground therefore.

Next comes the Revenue’s 15th substantive ground that the Assessing Officer had rightly 36. made arms’ length price adjustment of Rs. 38,58,60,000/- involving the assessee’s power purchases made from its related part M/s Reliance Energy Trading Limited @ 20% of the total amount of Rs. 192.9. crores which has been wrongly deleted in the learned CIT(A) lower appellate discussion. We notice herein again as well that all what the learned Assessing Officer had done was to invoke ad hoc disallowance of 20% than finding the specific market comparables in light of the prescribed methods; more particularly, under Chapter X of the Act. This is further coupled with the fact that the assessee; a company engaged in power distribution business etc, is already governed by the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act (supra) and bound by various directions issued by the statutory authorities from time to time. We thus see no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion deleting the impugned addition in the assessee’s favour and against the department. Rejected accordingly.

The Revenue’s 15th substantive ground reads that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law 37. and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action making the assessee’s excess subsidy addition of Rs. 6,94,00,000/- in lower appellate discussion; reading as under: “5.25.1. It is contended that the AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 6,94,00,000/- on account of excess subsidy received.

5.25.2. The AO on the perusal of assessee's submissions during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that there was an excess subsidy received from the Govt. of NCT of Delhi during the month of June 2009 and accordingly the AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the same should not be added to the Total Income of the assessee. The appellant confirmed the receipt of excess subsidy but stated before the AO that it acted as an agent of the Government of NCT of Delhi in respect of disbursement of subsidy to the consumers and in view of a large number of consumers eligible for subsidy as per the 'subsidy orders' of the government issued from time to time, it was neither possible nor practical for the government to verify the eligibility of the consumers and its disbursement, accordingly and to avoid such cumber some process, subsidy was paid direct to the assessee company by the Government for its disbursement to the eligible consumers and that any subsidy amount that was excess/short received was adjusted during the subsidy disbursement, in subsequent period. Hence, there is no element of profit at any stage in the subsidy amount received from the government for its disbursement to the eligible consumers. Moreover, the assessee company submitted quarter wise details of the subsidy received and disbursed to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) for its verification and reporting to the government. The excess subsidy, received in June 2009 had already been adjusted in the subsequent disbursement by the assessee to the eligible consumers and in fact as on 31.03.2010, a sum of Rs.5.69 crores (as. further revised) was receivable from the Government against the subsidy account. Since the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence and also substantiate its point of view, particularly with regard to the adjustment of Government subsidy, the AO added the said sum to the total taxable income of the assessee.

5.25.3 The appellant reiterated its submission that there is no element of-profit at any stage in the subsidy amount received from the Government for its distribution to the eligible consumers as subsidy for each quarter was projected in advance, based on past trends, consumer growth, consumption growth, weather conditions, change in subsidy slabs/order or any other factor, which was later trued up on the bais of actual subsidy released to the consumers and the difference, if any, between the provisional subsidy and the actual subsidy released to consumers were adjusted by Go NCTD/DERC in the forth coming quarter. I tend to agree with the submission in this regard that in accordance with provisions of the appellant of Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the subsidy was released by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi in advance for each quarter at the beginning of that quarter, for which all discoms including appellant were to furnish separate data in respect of subsidy disbursed on a quarterly basis to the DERC, immediately, so that effects would be made available to the GONCTD by the DERC for further action by them. Considering the totality of facts on record, I am of the opinion that the appellant had discharged the onus of substantiating that the excess amount received by it by way of Govt. subsidy was not assessable as income as the same is adjustable against next billings and at the end of the financial year under reference, there was, in fact an amount receivable by the appellant from GoNCTD. Moreover, the appellant was only acting as an agent for the GoNCTD. The appellant succeeds on this ground of appeal.”

The Revenue’s 17th substantive ground raises the next issue of prior period expenditure 39. disallowance amounting to Rs. 98,49,970/- made in the assessment order which has been reversed in the learned CIT(A) lower appellate discussion. It is in this factual backdrop that we hereby quote CIT vs Modipon Limited (2015) 57 taxmann.com 360 (Del) that such prior period expenditure is a revenue neutral instance only once the assessee is all along assessed at the same rate. We accordingly decline the Revenue’s instant substantive ground in very terms.

The Revenue’s 18th substantive ground is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and 40. on facts in treating the assessee’s expenditure claim of Rs. 8,98,57,386/- which was held as capital in nature in the Assessing Officer’s assessment discussion. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the assessee’s relevant records that it had not even claimed the former sum of Rs. 8,20,10,823/- in its P&L account which could be disallowed in the Assessing Officer’s assessment order. The factual position is a little bit different but the outcome remains the same regarding the assessee’s balance amount of repair expenditure incurred on day-to-day maintenance of its fixed assets etc. Rejected accordingly.

The Revenue’s 19th substantive ground is that the Assessing Officer had rightly 41. disallowed the assessee’s claim of premium paid on investments amount Rs. 47,60,696/- as capital in nature which has been wrongly reversed in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion. We notice that the assessee had acquired government securities and what all it had done was to credit the net amount of interest ie., interest accrued/ received or reduced by the amortization of investments as income from “other” sources which forms subject matter of addition in the Revenue’s instant substantive ground. Learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to ACIT vs Ozer Merchant Co-operative Limited 41 taxmann.com 110 (Pune) deciding the very issue against the department such that a security premium paid could indeed be amortized going by the matching principle. Rejected accordingly.

The Revenue's 20th substantive ground raised in the instant appeal is that the Assessing 42. Officer had rightly disallowed the assessee’s legal expenses claim of Rs. 45 lakhs @ 25% amounting to Rs. 11,32,035/- on ad hoc basis as penal in nature which has been wrongly reversed in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion. We notice in this factual backdrop that there is not even an iota of indication in the learned Assessing Officer's assessment findings as to in what manner the assessee's regular legal expenses could be held as not liable to be accepted once he had himself accepted the balance 75% in question. We thus hold that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings, deleting the impugned addition of 25% of the assessee’s day-to-day routine legal expenses in very terms. Upheld accordingly.

Lastly comes the Revenue’s 21st substantive ground seeking to reiterate the assessment 43. findings that assessee had been rightly held as not eligible for section 80IA deduction claim which already stands decided in its favour in the assessee’s 8th to 8.2nd substantive grounds in preceding detailed discussion. We draw the very analogy to accept the same in the department's favour in very terms. It's instant 21st substantive ground succeeds in principle. No other ground or argument has been pressed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 07.10.2026. Sd/- Sd/- NAVEEN CHANDRA SATBEER SINGH GODARA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER New Delhi Dated:07.10.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy to: M/S. BSES RAJDHANI POWER DCIT LIMITED CIRCLE-3(1), BSES BHAWAN, NEHRU PLACE,, NEW DELHI-, DELHI NEW DELHI-110020, DELHI TRUE COPY SHASHI Digitally signed by SHASHI KANT KANT PANDEY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., DELHI Date: 2026.10.22 PANDEY 03:42:22 -07'00'