Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2025 (1) TMI 1128 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        CUP method upheld for electricity transfer pricing between eligible and non-eligible units under Section 80IA Delhi HC upheld the application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP) of electricity transferred from ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          CUP method upheld for electricity transfer pricing between eligible and non-eligible units under Section 80IA

                          Delhi HC upheld the application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP) of electricity transferred from assessee's eligible unit to non-eligible unit under Section 80IA. The court accepted the rate of Rs. 4.39 per kWh at which assessee supplied power to UPPCL as appropriate ALP, rejecting revenue's challenge. Following Supreme Court precedent in Jindal Steel case, the court recognized rates charged by State Electricity Boards to industrial consumers as valid market value for Section 80IA purposes. Decision favored assessee.




                          1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

                          A. Whether the ITAT erred in law and on facts in deleting the adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on account of Arm's Length Price (ALP) adjustment of specified domestic transactions from Associated Enterprises for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15Rs.

                          B. Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting adjustments made on account of the transfer of power as per the provisions of Section 92F read with Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that there was a suitable selling Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) rate from the central agency in the field of power tradingRs.

                          2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

                          Issue A: ALP Adjustment of Specified Domestic Transactions

                          Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

                          Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act provides deductions for profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development. Sub-section (8) of Section 80IA mandates that if the transfer of goods or services between eligible and non-eligible businesses does not reflect market value, profits must be computed as if the transfer was made at market value. The market value is defined under Section 92F(ii) as the ALP.

                          Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

                          The court focused on whether the ITAT correctly applied the CUP method to determine the ALP for electricity transferred between the Assessee's eligible and non-eligible units. The ITAT's decision was based on the premise that the IEX rates could not serve as a valid external CUP due to significant differences in transaction characteristics.

                          Key Evidence and Findings:

                          The court noted that the Assessee had historically used rates from State Electricity Boards (SEBs) as internal CUPs. The TPO had used IEX rates to propose adjustments, but the ITAT found these rates unsuitable due to differences in transaction nature and reliability.

                          Application of Law to Facts:

                          The court applied the legal framework of Section 80IA and the definition of ALP under Section 92F(ii), emphasizing the need for comparable transactions to determine market value. The court agreed with the ITAT that IEX rates were not comparable due to their volatile and short-term nature.

                          Treatment of Competing Arguments:

                          The Revenue argued that IEX rates were appropriate for benchmarking. However, the court sided with the Assessee, finding that the nature of IEX transactions (short-term, bid-based) differed materially from the continuous supply agreements with SEBs.

                          Conclusions:

                          The court concluded that the ITAT was correct in deleting the adjustment proposed by the TPO, as the IEX rates were not a suitable benchmark for determining the ALP of the electricity transferred.

                          Issue B: Transfer of Power and Section 80IA

                          Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

                          Section 80IA(8) requires that the transfer of goods or services between eligible and non-eligible units be at market value, defined as the ALP. The ALP must be determined using the most appropriate method under Section 92C.

                          Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

                          The court examined whether the ITAT correctly rejected the use of IEX rates as an external CUP. The court acknowledged the differences in transaction characteristics between IEX trades and SEB agreements, supporting the ITAT's decision.

                          Key Evidence and Findings:

                          The court highlighted the Assessee's use of SEB rates as internal CUPs and noted the ITAT's agreement that these rates were more appropriate than IEX rates due to the latter's volatility and short-term nature.

                          Application of Law to Facts:

                          The court applied the legal principles under Section 80IA and Section 92F(ii) to determine that the ITAT correctly identified the SEB rates as a better reflection of market value than IEX rates.

                          Treatment of Competing Arguments:

                          The Revenue's argument that IEX rates should be used was countered by the Assessee's evidence of significant differences in transaction characteristics, which the court found persuasive.

                          Conclusions:

                          The court concluded that the ITAT was correct in its decision to delete the adjustments based on IEX rates, as these rates did not adequately represent the market value for the Assessee's transactions.

                          3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

                          Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:

                          "The CUP method cannot be applied where there is significant dissimilarity between the comparable transactions and it is not feasible to determine an adjustment to eliminate the impact of the said differences on the prices of comparable transactions."

                          Core Principles Established:

                          The court reaffirmed the necessity of using comparable transactions to determine ALP under the CUP method. It emphasized that transactions must be materially similar to serve as valid benchmarks.

                          Final Determinations on Each Issue:

                          For Issue A, the court upheld the ITAT's decision to delete the proposed ALP adjustment, finding that IEX rates were not suitable comparables. For Issue B, the court agreed with the ITAT that SEB rates were more appropriate than IEX rates for determining market value under Section 80IA.

                          In conclusion, the court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision in favor of the Assessee. The court's analysis focused on the appropriateness of using IEX rates as a benchmark for ALP, ultimately determining that SEB rates provided a more accurate reflection of market value for the Assessee's transactions.


                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found