O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

The captioned two appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, vide orders both dated 19.11.2025 for the Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-23. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common and identical, we extract the grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.302/Ahd/2026 for Assessment Year 2022-23 for the purpose of adjudication. The decision rendered in the said appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal bearing ITA No. 303/Ahd/2026 for Assessment Year 2023-24.

2. The Assessee has taken the following ground of appeal:-

1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹1.84,16,10,000/- on account of Capital Grants, Subsidies and Consumers Contribution by arbitrarily holding that 15% of the total grants/subsidies/consumer contribution received during the year is required to be transferred, as against 5.28% offered by the appellant, without appreciating the correct accounting treatment, factual matrix and settled position in the appellant's own case

1.1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that in the appellant's own case for the earlier assessment years, the Hon'ble ITAT has consistently set aside identical additions with specific directions to the Assessing Officer to apportion the capital grants and subsidies to the respective fixed assets and allow depreciation thereon in accordance with law, instead of making ad hoc or percentage-based disallowances.

1.2 The learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC has erred in not considering that, in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the appellant has prepared detailed workings year after year by allocating the capital grants and subsidies to Plant & Machinery, being the principal block of assets in the appellant's capital structure, and by re-computing depreciation accordingly, which workings were submitted before the Assessing Officer.

13 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer, while giving effect to the Tribunal's orders in earlier years, has repeatedly rejected the appellant's workings without cogent reasons and without suggesting any alternative scientific of asset-wise basis of apportionment, thereby effectively nullifying the binding directions of the Hon'ble Tibunal

1.4 The learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC further erred in law in sustaining the impugned addition by mechanically following the approach adopted in earlier assessment orders without independently examining whether the Assessing Officer had correctly and faithfully implemented the Tribunal's directions, and without addressing the appellant's specific grievance regarding non-compliance with judicial orders

1.5 The learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that repeated confirmation of the addition, notwithstanding consistent remand by the Hon'ble ITAT on the same issue in the appellant's own case, violates judicial discipline, renders the issue no longer res integra, and results in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings.

1.6 The appellant therefore prays that the impugned addition of ₹1,84,16,10,000/- be deleted and appropriate directions be issued to allow depreciation after proper apportionment of capital grants and subsidies in accordance with the binding orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal.

2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding the restriction on carry forward of unabsorbed business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years solely on the basis of assessed figures, ignoring that the said figures are under challenge in pending appeals and have not attained finality, thereby causing grave prejudice to the appellant.

3.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the above ground of appeal either before or at the time of h