Appeal dismissed: Assessee's captive power benchmarked to SEB tariff upheld; no s.14A disallowance; s.80G deduction allowed

ITAT KOLKATA - AT upheld CIT(A)'s acceptance of the assessee's benchmarking of captive power sales at the SEB tariff, rejecting the TPO's lower rate and dismissing the Revenue's appeal in line with the SC precedent and an unchallenged earlier AY decision. The tribunal also affirmed that no disallowance under s.14A is warranted where no exempt income arose. Finally, ITAT allowed deduction under s.80G for compulsory CSR payments made to institutions registered under s.80G, overturning the AO's disallowance and following prior judicial precedents.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the rate at which captive power supplied to the assessee's non-eligible units should be benchmarked for arm's length price/market value by reference to the tariff charged by the State Electricity Board (SEB) to industrial consumers in the open market or by reference to the rate at which generating companies supply to distribution companies / the price under PPA (i.e., the rate for sale to the SEB).

2. Whether the Explanation to section 80-IA(8) (limb (i): price in the open market; limb (ii): arm's length price as defined in section 92F(ii)) requires adoption of ALP under transfer pricing provisions for specified domestic transactions or permits adoption of open-market price (SEB tariff) as market value.

3. Whether the post-Finance Act, 2022 amendment to section 14A permitting disallowance even where no exempt income is earned applies retrospectively for assessment years prior to 01-04-2022 and whether a disallowance under section 14A can be made where no exempt income was in fact earned in the relevant year.

4. Whether compulsory corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenditure paid to institutions registered under section 80G can qualify for deduction under section 80G (i.e., whether such CSR donations are deductible as section 80G contributions notwithstanding CSR classification and prior suo-moto addition under section 37).

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Benchmarking captive power: SEB consumer tariff v. rate to SEB (PPA/PPAs) as market value/ALP

Legal framework: Determination of "market value" for supplies between eligible and non-eligible units is governed by Explanation to section 80-IA(8) (price in the open market OR ALP as defined in section 92F where the transfer is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA). Transfer pricing provisions (Chapter X) provide mechanism to determine arm's length price for specified domestic transactions.

Precedent treatment: The Supreme Court in the cited decision held that "market value" of power supplied by captive plants to industrial units is the rate at which the SEB supplied power to industrial consumers in the open market and that the PPA/price at which captive plants sold surplus to SEB (a contracted/regulatory price) cannot be equated with market value. Coordinate tribunal and High Court decisions were considered, distinguishing facts where regulation prevented open market sale.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal adopts the Supreme Court's conceptualization of "open market" (price determined by supply and demand; unfettered negotiation) and reasons that the PPA price for sale to the SEB is a regulated/contracted price determined in a statutory regime where the generator lacked market negotiation power; therefore such contracted PPA rates are not representative of the competitive price a consuming industrial unit would pay. The Tribunal also observes that Explanation to section 80-IA(8) permits adoption of either limb (i) or (ii); where limb (i) (open-market price) is available and appropriate, that may be the correct market value. Applying transfer pricing methodology with MAM = CUP and tested party as manufacturing (purchasing) unit, the Tribunal accepted SEB consumer tariff as the appropriate comparandum. The Tribunal further reasons that the concept of market price under 80-IA(8)(i) aligns with the objective of ALP determination under TP provisions and that post-TP inclusion of specified domestic transactions does not dilute the relevance of market value defined under limb (i).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Market value for captive supply to non-eligible units is the SEB consumer tariff (price charged by SEB to industrial consumers) and not the contracted price at which surplus is sold to SEB; where a specified domestic transaction is involved, the assessee may adopt limb (i) of Explanation to section 80-IA(8) (open-market price) and that price can constitute arm's length price for TP purposes. Observations distinguishing ITC Ltd. and other factual permutations are applied as ratio to the facts.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upholds the CIT(A)'s deletion of the TP/TPO adjustment and holds that the assessee's adoption of the SEB consumer tariff (Rs. 8.1525/kWh) is the arm's length/market price for captive supply to its non-eligible units; the TPO's lower rate based on generator?SEB sale/PPA is not the appropriate benchmark.

Issue 2 - Interaction of Explanation to section 80-IA(8) and transfer pricing (ALP) regime

Legal framework: Explanation to section 80-IA(8) provides two alternative definitions of market value; Chapter X (sections 92BA, 92CA, 92F) prescribes ALP mechanism for specified domestic transactions.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal relied on its own coordinate bench decisions and the Supreme Court decision which interpreted market value in the context of electricity supply and held that open-market SEB consumer rate is the market value; tribunal decisions have accepted use of CUP method with tested party as manufacturing (purchasing) unit.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasons that clause (i) and clause (ii) of the Explanation are alternatives - a taxpayer may adopt the price that goods/services would fetch in the open market OR adopt ALP as defined in section 92F where the transaction is a specified domestic transaction. The judgment recognizes that ALP determination under TP provisions is an exercise to ascertain market price, but does not mandate that ALP (per TP procedures) must always supplant open-market price where the latter is available and representative. The Tribunal accepts that when MAM is CUP, identification of tested party remains necessary and the purchase price from SEB in uncontrolled conditions is an appropriate comparandum.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Explanation to section 80-IA(8) permits reliance on open-market price where it correctly reflects market value; TP procedures do not automatically preclude use of open-market price as ALP for specified domestic transactions. Obiter - technical remarks on tested party selection and ICAI guidance when CUP is MAM.

Conclusion: The Tribunal holds that the assessee properly invoked clause (i) of the Explanation and that the SEB consumer tariff constitutes market value and, for TP purposes, may be accepted as arm's length price, subject to proper application of TP principles (identification of tested party, MAM selection).

Issue 3 - Section 14A disallowance where no exempt income is earned; effect of Finance Act, 2022 amendment

Legal framework: Section 14A permits disallowance of expenditure in relation to exempt income. Finance Act, 2022 amended section 14A (inserted non-obstante clause and Explanation) to clarify disallowance can be made even if no exempt income is earned; effective from 01-04-2022 unless expressly retrospective.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court decision holding the 2022 amendment is prospective (takes effect from 01-04-2022) and prior law requires exempt income to exist for a disallowance; Calcutta High Court authority and other decisions were noted that no disallowance can be made in absence of exempt income for years prior to amendment.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that for the assessment year in question no exempt income was earned. It accepted the judicial line that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment does not have retrospective effect and therefore cannot be invoked for earlier years. Consequently, AO could not make section 14A disallowance where exempt income for that year was nil.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - For assessment years prior to the operative date of the 2022 amendment, no disallowance under section 14A can be sustained in the absence of any exempt income earned in that year. Obiter - references to the scope of the 2022 amendment as limited to prospective application.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upholds deletion of the section 14A addition where the assessee earned no exempt income in the relevant year; the amendment of 2022 held prospective and inapplicable.

Issue 4 - Deductibility under section 80G of compulsory CSR donations to section 80G registered institutions

Legal framework: Section 80G provides deduction for donations to specified funds/charitable institutions; CSR obligations are mandated by corporate law and CSR amounts are often treated as business expenditure under section 37 unless added back; specific carve-outs in section 80G(2)(a) exclude only certain funds (e.g., Swachh Bharat Kosh, Clean Ganga Fund) from deduction.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on tribunal precedents (including jurisdictional decisions) that allowed 80G deductions for CSR payments made to institutions registered under section 80G, distinguishing authorities where specific statutory prohibitions applied or facts differed.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had suo-moto added CSR expenses and paid donations to institutions registered under section 80G with requisite receipts/certificates and tax auditor certification (Form 3CD). It observed that section 80G specifically excepts only certain named funds from deduction; absence of a general prohibition means other CSR donations to eligible 80G institutions are claimable under section 80G, subject to statutory limits. The Tribunal treated CSR classification and section 37 addition as distinct from entitlement under section 80G.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - CSR payments made to institutions registered under section 80G are eligible for deduction under section 80G (to the extent and subject to conditions prescribed), except where section 80G expressly prohibits such deduction for specified funds. Obiter - reliance on multiple tribunal precedents and policy rationale distinguishing CSR treatment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s allowance of deduction under section 80G for CSR donations made to eligible section 80G institutions and deletes the AO's disallowance.

Overall disposition

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the substantive issues: it confirmed that SEB consumer tariff is the correct market/arm's length price for captive power transfers; held that Explanation to section 80-IA(8) permits use of open-market price as market value even post introduction of TP provisions; deleted section 14A disallowance where no exempt income was earned (applying the prospective character of the 2022 amendment); and allowed section 80G deductions for CSR donations to eligible 80G institutions. Procedural delay in filing the revenue appeals was condoned.

---