आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ (cid:13)ायपीठ, चे(cid:18)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI (cid:21)ी एबी टी. वक(cid:26), (cid:13)ाियक सद(cid:28) एवं सु(cid:21)ी पदमावती यस, लेखा सद(cid:28) के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3096/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subbiah Chettiar Narayanan, The Income Tax Officer, D1, Lotus Colony, Vs. Non Corporate Circle-7(1), Chamiers Road, Chennai.

Chennai – 600 035.

PAN: AABPN 5962D (अपीलाथ(cid:7)/Appellant) ((cid:8)(cid:9)यथ(cid:7)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:26) की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. Km Sethu, C.A ()थ(cid:26) की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11 .02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 26.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee raised the following ground of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the restriction of deduction under Section 80-IA only to business income, disallowing *14,49,330.

2. The deduction was rightly claimed against the Gross Total Income, well within the scope of Section 80-IA.

3. Sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA is a computational provision and does not limit the deduction to business income alone.

4. The action of the AO and CIT(A) violates the principle of consistency, especially when the same issue was resolved in favor of the appellant in AY 2020-21.

5. The disallowance is contrary to the legislative scheme of Chapter VIA and the intent of Section 80-IA.

6. The appellant seeks deletion of the disallowance and allowance of the full deduction as claimed.

7. The appellate wish is reserved to amend, modify, or add further grounds at the time of hearing.”

2. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 13.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 19,43,210/-. The A.O noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 70,39,050/- from wind mills and that the assessee has declared income chargeable under the head "profits and gains" from business or profession to the tune of Rs.55,41,919/-. The A.O held that the deduction u/s. 80IA cannot exceed the business income of the assessee and accordingly disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IA to the tune of Rs.14,49,330/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the disallowance made by the A.O. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that out of the five wind mills, the assessee has earned profit from three units and loss from two units. The details of the wind mills and the profits/loss are tabulated as under:

4. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act only for the eligible units and that there is no restriction under the Act to claim the deduction against the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O has restricted the addition considering the provisions of section 80A(2) which is misplaced. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Energy Ltd. ([2021] 127 taxmann.com 69 (SC))

5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

6. We have heard both the parities, perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the computation, we notice that the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act is computed by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 70,39,050/- towards profits from eligible units in Mannur and Kalspura. From the perusal of the computation of income we notice th