IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. Assessment Year

1204/Mum/2026 2017-18 6010/Mum/2025 2018-19 6011/Mum/2025 2020-21 6012/Mum/2025 2022-23 Jorabat Shillong Expressway Dy. CIT-14(1)(1)

504 and 505 Windsor Off CST Road, Room No. 432, 4^th Floor, Vs.

Kalina, Vidyanagari, S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 098 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AACCJ 3827 H (Appellant) : (Respondent)

: Shri J. D. Mistry a/w Appellant by Shri Paras Savla, Shri Pratik Podar, Shri Karan Jain, Ms. Pranjal Bajaj Respondent by : Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)

Date of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:

Captioned appeals by the same assessee arise out of separate orders of learned first appellate authority, pertaining to the assessment years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18, 2018- 19, 2020-21 and 2022-23. Since, the appeals involve common issues, they have been clubbed together and disposed of in a common order, for the sake of convenience.

2. At the outset, Shri J. D. Mistry, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the core issue arising in all the appeals relates to disallowance of assessee’s claim of deprecation on the intangible asset acquired by the assessee while executing the contract of 4 laning of Jorabat-Shillong (Barapani) Section of National Highway – 40 in the States of Assam and Meghalay on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (‘DBFOT’) basis. He submitted, if this issue gets decided in favour of the assessee, the other issues would more or less become academic. Hence, may be kept open.

3. Learned Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) agreed with the aforesaid submissions of ld. Counsel for the assessee. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions of the parties, we propose to deal with the issue of claim of depreciation at the very outset and, thereafter, if warranted, will take up the other issues arising in the appeals.

4. In this context, we propose to take up ITA No. 1204/Mum/2026, pertaining to A.Y.

2017-18 as the lead appeal.

ITA No. 1204/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2017-18)

5. Ground no. 1 is a general ground, hence, no separate adjudication is required.

6. The issue relating to claim of depreciation is contained in ground no. 2 of the appeal. Before we proceed with the issue, it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the relevant facts. The assessee is a resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in the business of development of infrastructure projects. On 16.07.2010, the assessee entered into a concession agreement with the National Highway Authority of India (‘NHAI’ for short) for construction of four laning of Jorabat-Shillong (Barapani) Section of National Highway – 40 in the States of Assam and Meghalay for an approximate stretch of 61.92 kms on DBFOT basis. As per the terms of the concession agreement, the assessee was required to execute the entire project independently infusing its own funds and operating the toll road for a period of 20 years (concession period) and receive annuity at the specified rate. In terms with the agreement, the assessee executed the project employing its own funds and as on 31.03.2016, the total cost of the project was to the tune of Rs.966,64,10,079/-, which was capitalized in the books of accounts, by treating it as ‘fixed asset’. In the return of income filed for the A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee, for the first time, claimed depreciation on the capitalized cost. In the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring net loss of Rs.205,14,15,414/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring loss of Rs.193,05,85,288/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.202,58,49,703/- on the opening written down value (‘WDV’ for short) of the intangible asset, being the capitalized cost of construction of toll road, by a