ORDER

PER BENCH:

This group of ten appeals/cross objection for Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 involve identical issues. Accordingly, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.0 ITA No.4916/Del/2014 is Department’s appeal for Asst. Year 2010-11 and is preferred against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT (A)} dated 14.07.2014. The assessee has filed Cross Objection bearing C.O. No.37/Del/2019 against the Department’s Appeal. ITA No.4390/Del/2016 is the assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year: 2011-12 which has been preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) dated 21.06.2016 whereas ITA No.4816/Del/2017 is the Department’s cross appeal for the same year. ITA No.4122/Del/2017 is assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year: 2012-13 which against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) dated 01.05.2017 whereas ITA No.4911/Del/2017 is the Department’s Cross appeal for the same year. ITA No.4122/Del/2017 is assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year: 2013-14 which challenges the order of the Ld. CIT (A) dated 01.05.2017 and ITA No.4912/Del/2017 is the Department’s Cross Appeal for Asst. Year 2013-14. ITA No. 4123/Del/2017 is assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year: 2014-15 and challenges the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) as contained in order dated 01.05.2017. The Department’s cross appeal for Asst. Year: 2014-15 is captioned as ITA No.4913/Del/2017.

2.1 The respective grounds raised by both the parties for the captioned assessment years are as under:

2.2 ITA No.4916/Del/2014 for A.Y.2010-11 (Department’s appeal):

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.73,40,98,815/- made by AO on account of disallowance of 40% of general licence fee, holding the same as not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee.

2. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in reducing the disallowance made u/s 14A from Rs.16,95,310/- to Rs.2,43,995/- thereby granting relief to the extent of Rs.14,51,315/-.

3. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,80,321/- made by AO by restricting the depreciation on UPS @15% as against assessee’s claim @60%.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.17,27,059/- made by AO by denying the claim of depreciation in respect of energy saving and pollution control equipment on the ground that it was not put to use.

5. The appellant craves leave to, add to, alter, amend or vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

2.3 ITA No.4816/Del/2016 for A.Y.2011-12 (Department’s appeal):

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.90,77,99,068/- made by AO on account of disallowance of 40% of general licence fee, holding the same as not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee.

2. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in reducing the disallowance made u/s 14A from Rs.18,33,783/- to Rs.17,58,758/- thereby granting relief to the extent of Rs.75,025/-.

3. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.50,82,770/- made by AO denying the claim of depreciation in respect of pollution control equipment as there was no evidence submitted to indicate that they were pollution control equipments.

4. The appellant craves leave to, add to, alter, amend or vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

2.4 ITA No.4911/Del/2017 for A.Y.2012-13 (Department’s appeal):

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.1,06,54,85,768/- made by the AO on account of dis