ECO RRB INFRA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal remanded the Section 80IA deduction issue to the AO for fresh adjudication based on previous High Court and Tribunal orders. The bad debt claim was also set aside to the AO to verify if the rent was offered to tax in the prior year and, if so, to allow the deduction.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA for power generation business, but the AO disallowed it by allocating expenses against consultancy income. The assessee also claimed bad debt for unrealized rent, which was disallowed by the AO and CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether expenses and depreciation related to power generation can be set off against non-taxable consultancy income for Section 80IA deduction. Whether bad debt for unrealized rent, previously offered to tax, is allowable as a deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘Friday-A’ NEW DELHI
Challenging the order dated 29.12.2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 passed by ld. Commissioners of Income-tax (Appeals)-34, New Delhi (“CIT(A)”) and orders dated 12.02.2019 in appeal Nos. 3/10448/2016-17 and 3/10241/2917-18 for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 passed by ld. CIT(A)-3, New Delhi, M/s. Eco RRB Infra Pvt. Ltd. (“the assessee”) filed these appeals.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of developing, operating, maintaining the infrastructure facility in the power sector. For the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015- 16, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”) on the ground that the assessee had wrongly claimed expenses and depreciation related to power generation against non-taxable consultancy income and that if the direct expenses are allocated towards the income generated from power generation, the income from power generation will result into loss and therefore, there would not be any income to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act.
In the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee also claimed bad debt of Rs.7,49,106/- in the profit and loss account by stating that they had shown the rental income under the head “income from house property” in assessment year 2013-14 and since the same was not realised it was claimed as bad debt against the business income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same.
Challenging the disallowance of claim u/s. 80IA for all the three years and also the disallowance of claim for bad debt for assessment year 2014- 15, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case noticed that identical question had arisen in assessee’s own case under identical facts for assessment years 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and in appeals, the CIT(A) had taken a view against the assessee and therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed in respect of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. So also in respect of assessment year 2014-15 on the aspect of disallowance of bad debt, the ld. CIT(A) held that u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, only the bad debts which were considered as income under the head “profits and gains of business” can be allowed as deduction and as much as the claim of deduction of Rs.7,49,106/- by the assessee does not have any nexus with the business activities of the assessee, it cannot be related to business income and such a claim cannot be allowed. He, therefore, dismissed that ground also. The assessee is, therefore, before us in these appeals.
At the outset, it is the submission of the ld. AR that as rightly observed by ld. CIT(A), the facts involved in these three years are identical to the facts involved for earlier assessment years 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13. He further submitted that this issue was dealt with by coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in and 6149/Del/2012 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and placed reliance on the observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRB Consultants, 14 TTJ 794 (Delhi). He submitted that by order dated 06.01.2020 in ITA No. 4633/Del/2017 for assessment year 2012-13, the issue relating to deduction under section 80IA was remanded to the file of Assessing Officer to adjudicate it afresh in tune with the direction given in ITA No. 400/Del/2011 and 6149/Del/2012 by order dated 27.09.2013 and ITA Nos. 700 and 701/Del/2013 for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively by order dated 16.10.2014. He, therefore, prayed that similar course may be followed in this year also.
There is no denial from the Revenue that the facts involved in these years are identical to the facts involved for the assessment years 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 as observed by the ld. CIT(A). The direction given by the Tribunal in for the assessment year 2012-13 by order dated 06.01.2020 is also not controverted.
In earlier years, it was held that deduction u/s. 80IA has to be computed after setting off the depreciation relating to wind mill against income earned out of electricity generated, which qualified for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. In this factual and legal situation, we deem it just and proper to follow the view taken by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case consistently over a period of time from 2000-01. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order on this aspect and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh in tune with the directions in and 6149/Del/2012 by order dated 27/9/2013 and in ITA Nos. 700 and 701 /Del/ 2013 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively by order dated 16/10/2014. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.
Now coming to the second ground of appeal for assessment year 2014-15 relating to disallowance of bad debt claimed by the assessee, the assessee pleaded that they have declared the said income in the computation of income for assessment year 2013-14, but an amount to the tune of Rs.7,49,106/- could not be realized and therefore, in this assessment year, it was written off and claimed as bad debt.
9. Although according to the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), the bad debt rent is not allowable expense against the business income, there is no denial of the fact pleaded by the assessee that the rent was shown in the books of account of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 and was offered to tax but since it was not realized, the same was written off and claimed as bad debt. It is a verifiable fact. If the rent was shown in the books of account and was offered to tax in assessment year 2013-14, when such rent was not actually realised, the same could be permitted to be written off in this year. We, therefore, set aside the issue to the file of Assessing Officer to verify whether rent was declared and offered to tax in assessment year 2013-14 and if so, to allow the deduction of bad debt in this assessment year.
In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th February, 2020.
More judgments on Section 80IA
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Klsr Infratech Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 2323/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026