IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2622/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 2623/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No. 7981/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 C & S Electric Limited Deputy Commissioner of

222, Okhla Industrial Estate Income Tax, Phase-III, New Delhi Vs. Circle-1, LTU, New Delhi PAN: AAACC0909K (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No. 2532/Del/2018, A.Y.2013-14 ITA No. 2533/Del/2018, A.Y.2014-15 ITA No. 8274/Del/2018, A.Y.2015-16 Deputy Commissioner of C & S Electric Limited Income Tax, (Formerly Controls & Circle-1, LTU, Vs. Switchgear Co. Ltd.)

New Delhi 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi PAN: AAACC0909K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Sh. Anil Bhalla, CA Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/06/2025 ORDER PER BENCH Cross appeal by the Assessee and Revenue containing common facts were heard together being inter-connected with each other and are being disposed off by this common order.

2. These appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are directed against orders dated 10.01.18 and 25.09.2018 respectively of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’].

2.1 Similar grounds have been taken by the appellants in their above- mentioned appeals. Therefore, for brevity, the cases of the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2013-14 are taken as lead cases. Grounds taken by the assessee and Revenue in appeal of AY 2013-14 are extracted here under:

ITA No. 2622/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 “1. The Assessee Company is aggrieved by action of CIT(A) in confirming the reduction of deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act by Rs.43,56,584/-on the ground that the allocation of Head Office indirect expenses has not been made to 80 IC units. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in determining an incorrect amount of disallowance on account of incorrect determination of turnover and ignoring that an amount has already been allocated.

2. The Assessee Company is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) on the computation of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act on the ground that the allocation of Head Office expenses amounting to Rs.5,36,335/- made to 10AA unit has been made in excess of the amount already allocated and has further erred in determining an incorrect amount of disallowance on account of incorrect determination of turnover and ignoring that an amount has already been allocated.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in disallowing on ad-hoc basis at 15% of the expenses a sum of Rs.13,42,417/- out of foreign traveling expenses allegedly on the ground that such expenses are not for business purpose.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in disallowing 1/3rd of expenses on ad-hoc basis of club membership and expenses amounting to Rs.1,59,005/- allegedly on the ground that the same are personal in nature.

5. The Appellant Company craves leave to add, alter or amend the ground of appeal at a later stage.”

ITA No. 2532/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in allowing a relief of Rs.72,199/- on account of excess claim u/s 80IC in relation to transfer from non 80IC units to 80IC units as disallowed by the A.O.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in allowing a relief of Rs.74,95,918/- made by A.O. while determining the adjustment on account of difference in transfer rate from Non 80IC units to 80C unit.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in directing the Assessing Officer not to allocate expenses amounting to Rs. 66,57,651/- on depreciation as applied for allocating the expenses of salaries of CMD/MD, interest expenses pertaining to car loan of CMD/MD u/s 80IC.

4. On the facts and in the cir