2014 (10) TMI 1038 - AT - Income Tax

Characterization of receipt - Clean Development Mechanism CDM receipts - revenue receipt or capital receipt - HELD THAT - The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s My Home Power Ltd. v. DCIT 2012 (11) TMI 288 - ITAT HYDERABAD has held carbon credit as capital receipts. Also see SRI VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE TIRUPUR 2015 (4) TMI 132 - ITAT CHENNAI - Thus we hold that the amount received by the assessee on account of CDM (carbon credits) is capital in nature. The impugned order is set aside the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of Clean Development Mechanism [CDM] receipts as capital receipts for deduction u/s.80IA.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejecting the claim to treat CDM receipts as capital receipts. The assessee, engaged in yarn manufacturing and power generation, claimed deduction u/s.80IA on the income from windmill division, including the amount from the sale of carbon credits. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction on CDM receipts. The CIT(Appeals) rejected both the primary and alternate pleas of the assessee. The Tribunal examined previous decisions and found that CDM receipts are capital receipts. The Hyderabad Bench had previously held that carbon credits are in the nature of entitlement received for environmental concerns and should be treated as capital receipts. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also upheld this view, emphasizing that carbon credits are not directly linked to business activities but are generated due to environmental concerns.

The assessee argued that various tribunal decisions supported treating CDM receipts as capital receipts. On the contrary, the Department supported the CIT(Appeals) order, citing a Cochin Bench decision that considered income from the sale of carbon credits as revenue receipts. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments, noting that carbon credits are not an offshoot of business but a result of environmental concerns, making them capital receipts. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd., where the transfer of surplus loom hours was considered a capital receipt. The Tribunal concluded that the consideration received for carbon credits is similar to the consideration for transferring loom hours and should be treated as a capital receipt. The Andhra Pradesh High Court concurred with this view, stating that carbon credits are not directly linked to business activities and are capital receipts. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the amount received on account of CDM (carbon credits) is capital in nature, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of treating CDM receipts as capital receipts for deduction u/s.80IA. The Tribunal and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that carbon credits are not business income but capital receipts arising from environmental concerns. The decision was based on the nature of carbon credits as entitlements for reducing carbon emissions, not generated through business activities. The judgment aligned with previous tribunal decisions and established that income from the sale of carbon credits should be considered capital receipts, overturning the CIT(Appeals) order.