Income from sale of carbon credits constitutes capital receipt and not taxable under Section 115BBG introduced from 2018

ITAT Ahmedabad held that income from sale of REC (carbon credits) constitutes capital receipt and is not taxable, following precedent in Satia Industries Ltd. The tribunal noted Section 115BBG specifically taxing carbon credits was introduced from 01.04.2018, confirming non-taxability for the assessment year. Regarding partner remuneration disallowance, ITAT upheld AO's view that partners' remuneration cannot be entirely excluded from exempt income activities, as assuming unit generates income without partner involvement is unreasonable. The tribunal agreed with proportionate disallowance based on power income ratio. For depreciation on solar assets, matter was restored to CIT(A) for adjudication as no findings were provided despite specific grounds raised.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal include:

(a) Whether the income arising from the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) qualifies as income derived from an eligible business under Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and is therefore eligible for deduction, or alternatively, whether such income is capital in nature and not taxable for the assessment year 2017-18;

(b) Whether the receipts from sale of RECs (carbon credits) are taxable under Section 115BBG of the Act, which was introduced with effect from 01.04.2018 and whether this provision applies retrospectively or prospectively;

(c) Whether the disallowance of partner's remuneration amounting to Rs. 3,80,000/- was justified, considering compliance with Sections 40(b) and 40A(2) of the Act, and whether such remuneration can be apportioned to the solar power unit;

(d) Whether the Assessing Officer's disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 3,25,692/- on solar building and machinery was valid, and the failure of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") to adjudicate this ground;

(e) Additional grounds relating to levy of interest under Sections 234B/C and penalty under Section 270A of the Act were raised but not pressed before the Tribunal.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Taxability and Nature of Income from Sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80IA of the Act provides deduction for profits derived from eligible businesses, including power generation. Section 115BBG, introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018, specifically taxes income from transfer of carbon credits. Prior to this, the taxability of income from sale of RECs/carbon credits was subject to judicial interpretation. The Tribunal relied on precedents such as PCIT v. Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., CIT v. My Home Power Ltd., CIT v. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd., and Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. which considered the nature of income from RECs. The Supreme Court ruling in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. was also cited, which held that income directly related to business operations qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied deduction under Section 80IA for Rs. 12,27,384/- claimed as income from sale of RECs, treating it as taxable business income. The assessee contended that income from RECs is a capital receipt and not taxable for AY 2017-18, as Section 115BBG was introduced only prospectively from 01.04.2018. Alternatively, if considered revenue receipt, it should qualify for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal examined a recent decision in Satia Industries Ltd. vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, where the Tribunal held that income from sale of RECs/ESCs (carbon credits) is a capital receipt, not business income, as such credits arise from environmental concerns rather than business operations. The Tribunal analyzed the technical nature of carbon credits, RECs, and ESCERTs, highlighting that these are incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and are not generated as a by-product of business activities.

The Tribunal emphasized that such credits are entitlements or accretions of capital, not profits from business, and thus do not fall under taxable income heads under the Act. The taxability under Section 115BBG applies only prospectively and is not applicable for the impugned assessment year.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal relied on the regulatory framework, including the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) regulations, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) issuance of RECs, and the REC Scheme document. The factual similarity with Satia Industries Ltd. was critical, where similar facts led to the conclusion that income from RECs is capital in nature.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that income from sale of RECs for AY 2017-18 is a capital receipt and not taxable business income. Consequently, the deduction under Section 80IA was not relevant, and the income was not taxable under the Act for that year.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the income was taxable business income and upheld the assessee's argument regarding the prospective applicability of Section 115BBG. Since the income was capital in nature, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the issue of deduction under Section 80IA.

Conclusions: Ground No. 2 was allowed, holding that income from sale of RECs is capital receipt and not taxable for AY 2017-18. Ground No. 1 was not adjudicated in view of this finding.

Issue 3 & 4: Disallowance of Partner's Remuneration

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 40(b) and 40A(2) of the Act govern the allowability of partner's remuneration as deductible expenditure. The principles require that remuneration must be reasonable and related to business activities. Precedents such as DCIT v. Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd. and ACIT v. P.I. Industries were cited regarding apportionment of expenses to eligible units.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 3,80,000 of partner's remuneration on the ground that no expenses were allocated to exempt income from solar power generation, which was claimed under Section 80IA. The AO reasoned that partners must have devoted time and energy to the exempt income activities, and remuneration should be apportioned accordingly. The assessee argued that the solar power business operated automatically under agreements with the power developer and Discom, requiring no partner involvement, and thus no allocation was necessary.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not claim any expenditure against the exempt income and that it was unreasonable to assume that the solar power unit generated income without any partner involvement. The AO's and CIT(A)'s approach to disallow remuneration proportionate to power income (0.10% of total turnover) was upheld as reasonable.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal considered the agreements for operation and maintenance and power purchase, the automated collection process, and the absence of claimed expenses against exempt income. It found the AO's disallowance justified to prevent artificial inflation of exempt income.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the statutory provisions and judicial principles, the Tribunal held that partner's remuneration must be apportioned to exempt income if it is related to such income. Since no allocation was made, disallowance was warranted.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that remuneration need not be allocated due to automatic operation and lack of partner involvement, emphasizing the need for reasonable apportionment.

Conclusions: Grounds 3 and 4 were dismissed, confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,80,000 partner's remuneration.

Issue 5: Disallowance of Depreciation on Solar Building and Machinery

Relevant Legal Framework: Depreciation claims must be appropriately allocated to the business unit generating the income. If income is exempt under Section 80IA, depreciation should be claimed against that income.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs. 3,25,692/- on solar plant and building as these were claimed against income of another unit, not the solar power business.

The CIT(A) did not adjudicate this ground despite it being raised by the assessee. The Tribunal observed this omission and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

Key Evidence and Findings: The depreciation chart submitted by the assessee showed the claimed amounts. The Tribunal found the need for proper allocation and directed reconsideration.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal did not decide the issue on merits but remanded it for fresh consideration by the CIT(A).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Not applicable as the matter was remanded.

Conclusions: Ground 5 was allowed for statistical purposes and remanded to CIT(A) for adjudication.

Other Grounds: Grounds relating to interest under Sections 234B/C and penalty under Section 270A were raised but not pressed before the Tribunal and hence dismissed as not pressed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The Tribunal held that income earned from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)/ESCs (carbon credits) is a capital receipt and not business income since carbon credit is an offshoot from environmental concern and not an offshoot from business, thus, it will not be taxable."

"The credits in all the three modes of reduction of 'carbon footprint' are not generated or created due to carrying on business to this accrued due to concern of the world to improve emission of 'greenhouse gases' which are primary polluters of environment. Thus, the amount received for 'Carbon Credits' has no element for profit and gain and it is not subjected to tax under any head of income and it is not liable for tax in terms of sections 2(24), 28, 45 & 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961."

"Section 115BBG, which specifically taxes carbon credits, was introduced in the statute w.e.f. 01.04.2018 and is prospective in nature, hence not applicable to the impugned assessment year."

"Remuneration to partners is payable in respect of business as a whole and it cannot be said that such remuneration is not payable with respect to 'exempt income'. The Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing proportionate partner's remuneration related to the exempt income to prevent artificial reduction of taxable income."

"The matter relating to disallowance of depreciation on solar building and machinery is remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for adjudication as the CIT(A) did not give any finding on this issue."

---