IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’: NEW DELHI.

BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.319/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

ITA No.320/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

REC Limited, vs. ACIT – 10 (OSD), C/o D-22, Second Floor, Delhi.

South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049 (PAN :AAACR4512R)

ITA No.577/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

ITA No.578/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 JCIT – 10 (OSD), vs, Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Delhi. Core-4, Scope Complex, Kasturba Nagar, 7 Lodhi Road, East Delhi 110003 (PAN : AAACR4512R)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ashwani Taneja, Advocate Shri Shivam Kukreja Advocate Shri Shantanu Jain, Advocate Shri D. Dubey, Advocate Ms. Ria Jain, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR ITA No.609/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

ITA No.579/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2021-22)

JCIT – 10 (OSD), vs, Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Delhi. Core-4, Scope Complex, Kasturba Nagar, 7 Lodhi Road, East Delhi 110003.

(PAN : AAACR4512R)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Ms. Menal Goel, CA Ms. Tanya Upreti, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Pooja Swroop, CIT DR Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date of Order : 12.02.2026

ORDER

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. The assessee and Revenue has filed cross appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT (A)”, for short] dated 22.11.2024 for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Revenue has also filed appeals against the order of the ld. CIT (A) dated 28.11.2024 for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22.

2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order.

3. Frist we take up ITA No.319/Del/2025 and ITA No. 577/Del/2025 for AY 2018-19wherein both the assessee and revenue has taken following grounds of appeal, the assessee has taken the following grounds :-

“1. That the action taken w/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and consequent assessment framed, as upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is vitiated, without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making the additions/ disallowances on the issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as such the assessment order passed is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. AO in not taking into account, for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act and subsequently u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. the amount of Rs.15,11,41,174/- towards certain fees related to processing of loans (which includes processing charges, upfront fees etc.) by not considering the same to have been derived from the Long Term Finance Business of the Appellant and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principle of natural justice.

3.1 That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld.

CIT(A) in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in not taking into account, for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act and subsequently u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the amount of Rs.15,11,41,174/- towards certain fees related to processing of loans (which includes processing charges, upfront fees etc.) by not considering the same to have been derived from the Long Term Finance Business of the Appellant, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.2 That, without prejudice to the above grounds, if the amount of Rs.15,11,41,174/- is not considered to be part of Long Term Finance Business of the Appellant, then the total income of the Appellant ought to have been proportionately increased by this amount so as to re-compute the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act on the enhanced amount and the