IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2651/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

ITA No.2652/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

DCIT, Circle 1, vs. NHPC Limited, Faridabad. NHPC Office Complex, 4^th Floor, Finance Division, Sector 33, Faridabad – 121 003 (Haryana).

(PAN : AAACN0149C)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date of Order : 29.10.2025

O R D E R

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:

1. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld.

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)) dated 24.07.2023 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19.

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. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

AY 2017-18 “1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting disallowance of Rs.3,58,67,279/-claimed u/s 801A of the Act."?

2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.14,42,66,500/- made by the AO in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 being expenditure relatable to the income not include in the total income of the assessee while computing income under normal provisions as well as while computing book profit for MAT purposes u/s 115JB of the IT Act.? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.49,25,45,342/- made by the Assessing Officer mentioning that the concerned provisions are not an ascertained liabilities,?

4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.9,80,29,086/- on account of amortization of land made by the Assessing office in computing the book-profit u/s 115JB in respect of depreciation claimed on amortization of land unclassified by the assessee even though there is no depreciation allowable on land under Companies Act and no rate of depreciation is provided in Companies Act?”

AY 2018-19 “1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting disallowance of Rs.5,35,87,871/-claimed us 80IA of the Act.

2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.16,43,59,000/- made by the AO in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 being expenditure relatable to the income not include in the total income of the assessee while computing income under normal provisions as well as while computing book profit for MAT purposes us l15JB of the IT Act.?

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.3,73,32,190/- on account of amortization of land made by the Assessing officer in computing the book-profit us 115JB in respect of depreciation claimed on amortization of land unclassified by the assessee even though there is no depreciation allowable on land under Companies Act and no rate of depreciation is provided in Companies Act.”

4. With regard to Ground No.1 regarding disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in both the AYs i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19, at the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) amounting to Rs.3,58,67,279/- & Rs.5,35,87,871/- in AYs 2017-18 & A.Y.2018-19 respectively. The additions were made by the AO on account of disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Act. T