Tribunal Rules Carbon Credit Sales Not Taxable, Allows Additional Depreciation

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that income from the sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CER)/Carbon Credit should be treated as a capital receipt and not taxable. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the claim for additional depreciation on plant and machinery in the subsequent year, contrary to the Assessing Officer's disallowance. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of income from the sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CER)/Carbon Credit.
2. Disallowance of additional depreciation on plant and machinery.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Income from the Sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CER)/Carbon Credit:
The primary issue in Grounds No. 1 to 4 was whether the income on the sale of CER/Carbon Credit should be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The assessee argued that the income from the sale of CER/Carbon Credit was a capital receipt and thus not taxable. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated it as a business receipt and added it to the total income of the assessee.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's view, stating that the CERs were obtained in the course of the business activity and had a market value. Therefore, the income from the sale of CERs was considered a revenue receipt.

During the hearing, the assessee's counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Dodson Lindblom Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., which held that the sale of carbon credit is a capital receipt and not liable for tax. This view was supported by several High Courts, including the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. My Home Power Ltd., the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd., and others.

The Tribunal, following the consistent view of different High Courts and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, concluded that the income from the sale of CER/Carbon Credit should be treated as a capital receipt and thus not taxable. Therefore, Grounds No. 1 to 4 were allowed in favor of the assessee.

2. Disallowance of Additional Depreciation on Plant and Machinery:
Grounds No. 6 and 7 pertained to the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 10,98,27,376/-, being 50% of the claim made by the assessee for plant and machinery acquired and installed after 30th September 2012. The AO disallowed the claim, stating that additional depreciation could only be claimed in the year of purchase and not in subsequent years.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, citing that the proviso to Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, which allows for claiming the remaining 50% of additional depreciation in the subsequent year, was effective from 01.04.2016 and thus not applicable for the assessment year 2014-15.

However, the assessee's counsel referred to the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Godrej Industries Ltd., which allowed the claim of additional depreciation in subsequent years for assets acquired and used for less than 180 days in the previous year. This view was supported by the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., and the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd., which held that the amendment to Section 32 was clarificatory and thus applicable to pending cases covering past periods as well.

The Tribunal, following the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts, concluded that the assessee was entitled to claim the remaining 50% of additional depreciation in the subsequent year. Therefore, Grounds No. 6 and 7 were allowed in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
In summary, the Tribunal allowed Grounds No. 1 to 4 and Grounds No. 6 and 7 in favor of the assessee, treating the income from the sale of CER/Carbon Credit as a capital receipt and allowing the claim for additional depreciation in the subsequent year. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

---