Captive power generation profits u/s80-IA: inter-unit electricity valued at consumer tariff, TP adjustment set aside

The dominant issue was the correct benchmark for computing deduction under s. 80-IA on profits from captive power generation where electricity is transferred to other units of the same taxpayer and a TP adjustment was made. Relying on its earlier order in the taxpayer's own case and HC precedent, the Tribunal held that, for captive consumption, the arm's length/value for inter-unit transfer should be the tariff charged by electricity distribution companies to end consumers, not the lower rate at which generators sell to distribution companies. Consequently, the DRP's confirmation of a downward TP adjustment was set aside and the AO was directed to delete the addition; the appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, for computing profits of an eligible power-generating undertaking for deduction under section 80-IA in respect of electricity captively consumed by other units of the same assessee (a specified domestic transaction examined under transfer pricing), the "market value" / arm's length price should be taken as the tariff charged by the electricity distribution company to consumers, or the rate at which independent power producers sell electricity to the distribution company (as fixed/considered by the regulatory mechanism).

(ii) Whether the downward transfer pricing adjustment reducing the deduction under section 80-IA, made by adopting the distribution company's procurement rate (and sustaining the same), was sustainable despite the Tribunal's earlier decisions on identical facts in the assessee's own case for earlier years.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Correct benchmark ("market value" / ALP) for captive transfer of electricity for section 80-IA deduction

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court proceeded on the basis that deduction under section 80-IA was claimed in respect of captive power generation, and that the computation dispute concerned the rate to be applied for electricity transferred for internal consumption. The Court treated the controversy as one of determining the appropriate rate for computing eligible profits (and corresponding transfer pricing adjustment affecting section 80-IA deduction).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that under identical facts, the Tribunal had already held that, while computing deduction under section 80-IA for power generated and captively consumed, the relevant rate is the rate at which the electricity board/distribution company supplies power to its consumers, and not the rate at which power generators supply/sell power to the electricity board/distribution company. The Court accepted and applied this approach as the correct basis for valuing the internal transfer for purposes of computing the eligible profits.

Conclusions: For captive consumption, the Court concluded that the rate charged by the electricity distribution company to its consumers is to be considered for computing eligible profits/deduction under section 80-IA, and not the rate applicable to sale by generators to the distribution company. The impugned adjustment founded on the latter approach was therefore unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of the TP adjustment in light of binding/co-ordinate bench view on identical facts

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court emphasised consistency with the coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case where the same computation issue had been conclusively decided on identical facts. The Court treated that prior determination as governing the present year.

Interpretation and reasoning: After examining the record, the Court found the facts to be identical to those already adjudicated by the Tribunal for an earlier year, and observed that the earlier decision had directed that the consumer tariff be adopted for computing the section 80-IA deduction in captive power situations. Proceeding "consistent with view taken by the coordinate bench," the Court held that sustaining the downward adjustment was erroneous.

Conclusions: The Court held that the sustained downward transfer pricing adjustment reducing the section 80-IA claim could not stand. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition made towards the TP adjustment relating to the deduction claimed under section 80-IA, and the appeal was allowed.

---