TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on sale of power by eligible captive power units to the assessee's non-eligible units was sustainable; (ii) whether interest on perpetual non-convertible debentures was allowable as deduction; (iii) whether expenditure on compensatory afforestation was allowable; (iv) whether leave encashment expenditure claimed on payment basis was allowable; (v) whether disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D and its inclusion in book profit under section 115JB were sustainable; (vi) whether the claim relating to interest on perpetual non-convertible debentures in book profit under section 115JB required reconsideration.
Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on sale of power by eligible captive power units to the assessee's non-eligible units was sustainable.
Analysis: The relevant provision permits determination of market value either by the price ordinarily fetched in the open market or, where applicable, by arm's length price under the transfer pricing provisions. The non-eligible units had themselves purchased electricity from third-party distribution companies at the rates adopted by the assessee for inter-unit transfer. The comparable relied upon by the Revenue was rejected because the pricing of distribution companies did not displace the open market rate actually available to the assessee's consuming units. Following the earlier co-ordinate bench decision on the same issue, the transfer pricing approach adopted by the Revenue was not accepted.
Conclusion: The adjustment was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether interest on perpetual non-convertible debentures was allowable as deduction.
Analysis: The debentures were treated as borrowing instruments and not as equity. The same debentures had already been held in earlier years to give rise to allowable interest expenditure when used for business purposes. No distinguishing feature was shown for the year under consideration.
Conclusion: The interest was allowable as deduction and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether expenditure on compensatory afforestation was allowable.
Analysis: The payment was made pursuant to forest-clearance requirements and compensatory afforestation obligations. The issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years on the footing that such payment is revenue in nature and allowable in the year of incurrence.
Conclusion: The expenditure was allowable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iv): Whether leave encashment expenditure claimed on payment basis was allowable.
Analysis: The assessee's claim was confined to amounts actually paid before the due date for filing the return, and the computation showed that the amount claimed did not exceed the eligible payment-based amount. The claim was consistent with the statutory bar only to the extent of unpaid provision and was supported by the tax audit working.
Conclusion: The claim was allowed and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (v): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D and its inclusion in book profit under section 115JB were sustainable.
Analysis: The assessee had furnished a detailed allocation of administrative and common expenses for suo motu disallowance. The Revenue authorities did not record a proper satisfaction with reference to the accounts before invoking the mechanical computation under rule 8D. The book profit addition based on the same disallowance could not survive once the section 14A disallowance itself failed.
Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A and its addition to book profit were deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (vi): Whether the claim relating to interest on perpetual non-convertible debentures in book profit under section 115JB required reconsideration.
Analysis: This aspect was not finally adjudicated on merits in the present order and was sent back for reconsideration in line with the earlier decision in the assessee's own case.
Conclusion: The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded substantially on merits, with all substantive additions deleted except the matter relating to book-profit treatment of the debenture interest, which was remitted for fresh examination.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides market value to be determined either by open-market price or by arm's length price, the open-market price actually available to the consuming unit cannot be displaced merely by adopting a distribution-company benchmark without first rejecting the assessee's demonstrated market rate on cogent grounds.
TaxTMI 
