PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NTPC VIDYUT VYAPAR NIGAM LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the issues involved in the present appeal were identical to those considered in ITA 260/2024, which related to AY 2015-16. In that prior case, the High Court had upheld the ITAT's decision that the Assessee had not earned any taxable income from the sale of fly ash. The reasoning in the prior judgment, which the present Court followed, was that the Assessee was not free to utilize the sale proceeds of fly ash as they were required to be used for specified purposes, and this did not result in the Assessee acquiring any asset. The Court found no infirmity with the ITAT's decision and held that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed following the judgment in ITA 260/2024.
What were the facts?
The appeal before the Delhi High Court was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, New Delhi (Revenue) against an order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.6816/Del/2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14. The respondent is M/S NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd (Assessee). The Revenue's counsel acknowledged that a similar appeal for AY 2015-16 (ITA 260/2024) had been rejected by the High Court on 23.04.2025. The Assessee's counsel informed the court about this prior rejection. The High Court noted that the issues in the present appeal were identical to those in the prior appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Assessee had earned any taxable income on account of the sale of fly ash provided by NTPC, which is a mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The Assessee argued that the appeal should be dismissed as a similar appeal for AY 2015-16 (ITA 260/2024) was already rejected by the High Court. The Assessee's counsel pointed out that the Revenue's counsel was not in a position to dispute this factual position. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel, Ms. Naincy Jain, was not in a position to dispute the factual position presented by the Assessee regarding the prior dismissal of a similar appeal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench ‘E’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.6816/Del/2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Mr. Nischay Kantoor, learned counsel for the respondent informs that the Revenue’s appeal for subsequent year i.e., AY 2015-16 being in ITA 260/2024, has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 and therefore, this appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
Ms. Naincy Jain, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:26:11
appellant-Revenue is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid factual position.
In ITA 260/2024 relating to AY 2015-16, while considering a similar question, this Court has held thus:- “22. In the given facts, we do not find any infirmity with the decision of the learned ITAT that the Assessee had not earned any income on account of sale of fly ash, which was provided by NTPC. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd.: (2000) 244 ITR 738, the Madras High Court had upheld the decision of the learned ITAT holding that the amount set apart towards Molasses Storage Reserve Fund is required to be excluded from the total income of the assessee. The said decision was rendered bearing in mind the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order dated 06.02.1972, which required that the amount for construction of molasses storage tank was to be kept separately. The assessee had no power to spend the said amount, the same was required to be spent only in accordance with the directions issued by the Government. The appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, in view of the orders passed in similar matter permitting the Revenue to withdraw the appeals.
In the facts of the present case as well, the Assessee was not free to utilize the sale proceeds of fly ash as the same was required to be used for specified purposes, which as stated above, did not result in the Assessee acquiring any asset.
In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned ITAT. No Substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this court. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the aforesaid order and the question involved in the present appeal, we find that issues involved in the present appeal are identical to the issues considered by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:26:11
this Court in ITA 260/2024 relating to AY 2015-16. 6. Following the judgement of this Court dated 23.04.2025 in ITA260/2024 relating to AY 2015-16, the present appeal is also dismissed.
All pending applications stand disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 24, 2026/sid This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:26:11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
