2025 (7) TMI 748 - AT - Income Tax

Power transfer pricing adjustments deleted following Jindal Steel precedent accepting SEB rates as market value under Section 80IA

DCIT, Circle-7 (1), New Delhi Versus DCM Shriram Ltd., New Delhi And DCM Shriram Ltd. Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant CIT/ITO, NeAC, Delhi, ACIT, Circle-7 (1), Delhi, Assessment Unit, Income tax Department, Delhi And DCIT, Circle-7 (1), New Delhi

ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments for power transfer between eligible and non-eligible units, following SC precedent in ... Adjustments made towards deduction claimed u/s 80IA towards transfer pricing adjustment - MAM selection - TPO has obtained the rates from IEX and asked the assessee as to why External CUP method should not be applied, and sale rate of power should not be taken at average price at which power was purchased by the assessee from JVVNL and average price of IEX - assessee owns various captive power plants for production of power and supply of power generated therein amongst the other units - HELD THAT:- By respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble High Court [2024 (5) TMI 1511 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of [2021 (11) TMI 260 - ITAT DELHI] assessee itself held that Revenue has failed to controvert the assertions that rates in IEX are for power purchase and not for power consumption whereas electricity supply by power distribution company is charged on the basis of power consumed. Also by respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. [2023 (12) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT] accepted the rates at which electricity was supplied by the SEBs to industrial consumers as being the market value of the said supplies for the purposes of Sub-section (8) of Section 80IA of the Act - we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the adjustment made on account of transfer of power from eligible units to non-eligible units and accordingly, the adjustment has rightly been deleted by ld. CIT(A) which order is hereby upheld. Adjustment made towards sale of steam by eligible units to non eligible units - TPO has determined the ALP at NIL and accordingly, proposed the reduction in the deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act - CIT(A) has deleted the addition by placing reliance on case of CIT vs Cushman & Wakefield [2014 (5) TMI 897 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- From the facts, it is seen that steam is commercial and viable product and its value cannot be taken at NIL. Since the steam is one of the form of power and can be considered as joint product and not as by-product. The assessee has also filed the certificate of Chartered Accountant based on which the cost of the steam was worked out as transferred to the non-eligible unit which was disregarded by the AO/TPO without giving any reason. We find that all the aspects were discussed in detail by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 [2021 (11) TMI 260 - ITAT DELHI] wherein a detailed discussion is made on this issue and thereafter, the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal was of the view that the steam is a valuable source of power and has cost of production. Thus the price charged for transfer of steam from eligible unit on eligible unit at cost of production for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA is hereby upheld. Addition made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - on account of administrative expenses at the rate of 0.5% of average value of investments - While computing such disallowance, the company has considered only those investments which yielded exempt income - AO by observing that Revenue has not accepted the claim of the assessee in preceding years - HELD THAT:- The assessee has demonstrated that it had sufficient interest free funds in the shape of Capital and Reserves and therefore, no disallowance should be made under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Limited [2021 (9) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] has also expressed this view. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal had consistently been taken the view that where interest free funds are more than the value of investments which yielded exempt income, no disallowance should be made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A by the AO more particularly when this issue has already settled in assessee's own case wherein AY 2014-15 under identical circumstances, the addition/disallowance made was deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT and on further appeal by revenue, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has not admitted substantial question of law on this issue. Disallowance u/s 14A to the book profits computed u/s 115JB -With regard to the inclusion of book profit under section 115 JB, we followed the judgement of Special Bench in the case of Virit Investment [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] where it is held that no addition could be made on account of disallowance u/s14A to the book profit. This being so, we do not find any force in the arguments of Ld. CIT DR accordingly, the additional grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Revised / additional claim of deduction u/s 80IA towards transfer of steam from eligible units to non-eligible units - admission of the additional evidences at this stage - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the judgments as relied upon by the assessee in particular, the judgement of Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (6) TMI 72 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we find that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for non-filing of these evidences before the lower authorities and therefore, the same are hereby admitted for adjudication. Additional / revised claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on transfer of steam is raised for the first time by the assessee before us, by filing the additional grounds of appeal and supported by the additional evidences. The assessee has not made such claim either before the AO or before the Hon'ble DRP and thus the veracity of the additional claim remained to be examined on the merits by the lower authorities. In view of these facts, we restore back this issue to the file of AO to verify the assessee's claim of additional / revised deduction 80IA of the Act and decide the same in accordance with law. Deduction u/s 37 - expenses claimed towards education cess - HELD THAT:- This issue has been settled in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. [2023 (9) TMI 952 - SC ORDER] wherein has held that 'education cess cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the income under head business or profession'. The Hon'ble apex Court further observed that the amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 is retrospective in nature. We find no infirmity in the order of Ld. AO/ DRP in not allowing the expenses claimed towards education cess by the assessee. Validity of assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C(13) - addition on account of dividend from mutual fund claimed as exemption u/s 10(35) and further not allowing the deduction u/s 43B - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the computation of income and return of income filed, it is seen that the assessee has specifically claimed the exemption of dividend u/s 10(35). In the computation of income, a note to this effect was also given. Further, in Note No.22 of the financial statement, income under the head 'dividend income on short term investment' at INR 1.03 crores was disclosed which is evident from Paper Book at page 23. Admittedly, the dividend was received on mutual funds therefore, the same is exempted u/s 10(35) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition so made to the total income of the assessee. Disallowance made u/s 43B - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the assessee has claimed deduction of the said amount on payment basis however, no details of actual date of payment and the proof of payments were filed before the lower authorities therefore, in the interest of justice and to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, this issue is remitted back to the file of the AO with the direction that the same be allowed in accordance with law after making necessary verification of actual dates of payments. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary evidences in respect to the claim made in this regard. TP adjustment of sale of hybrid seeds - Comparable selection - assessee has benchmarked the transactions by using TNMM as most appropriate method with combined PLI of Shri Ram Bio Seeds and Generic Bio Seeds Research India at 6.51% - HELD THAT:- Basant Agro Tech (India) Ltd. has positive net worth and also the same is accepted suitable comparison for benchmarking the transaction in subsequent AY. Under these circumstances we find no reason to exclude the same from the final set of comparables accordingly, we direct the AO/TPO to include this company as a suitable comprable. Maharastra Hybrid Seeds Co.Ltd. company was in losses and therefore, we are not in agreement with the contention of the assessee that this company is to be included in the final set of comparable accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of AO/TPO to exclude the same from the final set of comparables. Metahelix Life Science Ltd. (Now Rallis India Ltd.) function of the company of the Seed Division is stated. According to it, the company is having identical product line of hybrid seeds and also engaged in production, R&D and activity of marketing seeds. The turnover of the bio-seeds segment is also at similar level if compared with the assessee. In view of these facts, in our considered opinion, this company could be included in the final set of comparables. Accordingly, we direct to include this company in the final set of comparables. With the above directions for the inclusion of two more companies in the final set of comparables, we direct the AO to re-compute the PLI (OP/OC) to benchmark the transactions and worked out the amount of ALP on sale of hybrid seeds. Action of the AO/TPO in making adjustment on account of interest on income on foreign currency - assessee has charged interest @ LIBOR + 350 basis point as against which the AO/TPO applied LIBOR + 400 basis points - HELD THAT:- The assessee in its grounds and further the chart given during the course of hearing stated that there is NIL adjustments made on this issue after the order of the Ld. DRP and no specific submission is made on this ground in the year under appeal therefore, the captioned grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are dismissed. Interest on receivables - assessee has benchmarked the transactions using other method as most appropriate method for benchmarking - claim of the assessee is that it had not charged interest from independent parties on receivables whereas interest is charged from AEs on outstanding receivables. It is further claimed that the necessary adjustments has already been made in the cost of sale of hybrid seeds - HELD THAT:- As by following case of Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and further considering the fact that in preceding years, the Revenue has accepted benchmarking done by the assessee also considering the fact that no interest is charged from independent parties, we direct to delete the adjustment made on account of interest on receivable in addition to the interest income already disclosed by the assessee. Disallowance made u/s 50C - difference between actual sale consideration and the value determined by stamp value authorities for charging stamp duty on the sale of two pieces of land - HELD THAT:- In the assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal [2021 (11) TMI 260 - ITAT DELHI] has sent back the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to refer the issue of determination of FMV as on the date of transfer of assets to DVO. AS admitted by both the parties, there is no change in the circumstances, thus, by respectfully following the decision for AY 2014-15[supra], we set aside this issue to the file of AO with a direction to make reference to DVO for determination of FMV of both the pieces of land. The assessee is also directed to raise all the objections before the DVO/AO in this regard. Addition made as notional interest - assessee has given loan to its subsidiary company and no interest was charged on the same - main contention of the assessee is that the interest income was offered for tax on receipt basis whereas the Revenue taxed the same on accrual basis - HELD THAT:- The assessee has duly offered the amount of TDS received by it as tax credit in this year and further stated the balance amount of interest was received in FY 2022-23 and the same was offered for tax in AY 2023-24 therefore, if the same is taxed in the year under appeal, it would be double taxation of income. Looking to these facts, we find force in the arguments of the assessee that an income should not be taxed twice. Once the interest income is offered for tax in the year of receipt i.e. in AY 2023-24 and has been accepted by the department, same should not be included in the income for the year under appeal on accrual basis. Accordingly, the AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee. Addition made towards mismatch in sales reported in ITR and as reflected in From 26QB - assessee submits that the assessee has filed necessary re-conciliation before the AO and submits that no such transaction as reported in Form 26QB was carried out by the assessee - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the details filed, it is seen that the AO has made the addition solely on the basis of difference reported in AIR between the sale price declared by the assessee and as appearing in 26QB statement. AO has failed to consider the fact that the assessee has already disclosed this transaction of sale of property under the head ‘Income from capital gains’ and further addition u/s 50C was also made by the AO in respect of this property. Though apparently the claim of the assessee appears to be correct however, in the interest of justice, we direct the AO to verify the correctness of the claim made by the assessee and if it is found correct, no addition is required to be made. Additional claim of foreign tax credit - condonation of delay in claiming foreign tax credit - HELD THAT:- As it is seen that the assessee has duly accounted for the interest from subsidiary company and paid the taxes thereon. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the treatment of interest received by the assessee from the subsidiary companies. The sole issue is with respect to the foreign tax credit of INR 18,27,359/- deducted by subsidiary company on this amount of interest. The delay in depositing the tax with appropriate authorities at Singapore was on account of inadvertent error on the part of the subsidiary companies and assessee has already moved an application for condonation of delay in filing TDS u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act before the ld. Pr. CIT and further placed reliance on the CBDT Circular No.9/2015. In view of these facts, we direct Ld. Pr. CIT to dispose-off the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in claiming foreign tax credit in accordance with law. Disallowance of interest for non-deduction of tax at source being 30% of the interest paid - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the assessment order and the order of DRP, we find that the AO has not followed the directions given by Ld. DRP in this regard. The assessee has filed detailed chart of the item-wise payment made to various entities of gross amount of finance cost as claimed in the Profit & Loss Account. As most of the payments were made to the financial institutions. Besides this certain payment of interest was made towards the late payment of GST/custom duty. Assessee has deduction tax at source on the payments wherever applicable however, item-wise verification is not possible at this stage. Therefore, we direct the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in terms of the chart given herein above and decide this issue in accordance with law. With this direction, Ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Addition on account of sale of motor car - HELD THAT:- As seen that the AO claimed that the assessee has sold the vehicles whereas the claim of the assessee is that it had purchased the vehicles amounting to INR 6.42 crores. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for making necessary verification of the facts. The AO is directed to make necessary verification. Addition on account of foreign exchange fluctuation - HELD THAT:- As assessee in order to avoid litigation, has accepted such disallowance however, in regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO further made this disallowance thus, it is double addition. Thus, it is double disallowance made both by the CPC and AO. Action of CPC in not allowing the deduction u/s 80IA claimed in the return of income filed - assessee submits that while computing the total income in Annexure-“Deduction under Chapter VIA” deduction u/s 80IA claimed by assessee is disallowed by observing that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA more than the sum of amounts mentioned in Form 10CCB. Hence, deduction u/s 80IA will be restricted to the extent of amounts mentioned in Form 10CCB - HELD THAT:- As from the perusal of tax computation sheet, it is seen that the deduction u/s 80IA was not allowed to the assessee and further addition was made on account of transfer price adjustment made which tantamount to double addition. In view of these facts, we hereby direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80IA in terms of Form 10CCB filed by the assessee of the eligible units for which the deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee in the computation of income. Adjustment of provision of gratuity - CPC has made further addition of the same by observing that there is inconsistency in the amount debited to Profit & Loss Account in the previous year but disallowable u/s 43B and claimed in the return of income and audit report - HELD THAT:- The said observations of the CPC are contrary to the fact that once the assessee itself disallowed this amount and added back to the total income, any further adjustments towards the same tantamount to double addition. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same. Adjustment made on account of late payment of PF/ESI - HELD THAT:- After considering the submissions, it is seen that the assessee has stated that a sum of INR 43,289/- was paid after due date under the respective Acts however, inadvertently the CPC has taken the figure of INR 21,98,611/-. This facts is further established from the order of CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act where CPC itself has observed that the amount of INR 43,289/- is the amount which was paid inconsistently with the provisions of the relevant Acts and thus, disallowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, we reduce the disallowance accordingly. Double taxation relief of the tax paid in Singapore u/s 90 - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the above, it is established, there is no dispute with regard to the availability of the foreign tax in the hands of assessee even by CPC, therefore, the AO is directed to allow foreign tax credit to the assessee. The core legal questions considered in these appeals primarily revolve around the determination of arm's length price (ALP) for specified domestic transactions under transfer pricing regulations, the allowability of deductions under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), and the applicability of disallowances under section 14A of the Act. Specifically, the issues include:1. Whether the transfer pricing adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) on the transfer of electricity from eligible power-generating units to non-eligible units are justified, particularly concerning the use of internal comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) data versus external CUP data from the Indian Energy Exchange (IEX).2. The correctness of the TPO's and AO's determination of the ALP for transfer of steam from eligible units to non-eligible units, including whether steam should be treated as a by-product with nil cost or as a joint product with a quantifiable cost of production.3. The admissibility of enhanced or revised claims of deduction under section 80IA raised during appellate proceedings and the conditions governing such claims, including the filing of audit reports and compliance with statutory timelines.4. The validity of disallowances made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, concerning administrative expenses and interest costs attributable to exempt income.5. The correctness and procedural propriety of various other adjustments including those under section 50C (capital gains on sale of land), interest on loans and receivables, foreign tax credit claims, and penalty proceedings.6. The maintainability and effect of adjustments made in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act and their treatment vis-`a-vis the final assessment order under section 143(3).Detailed analysis of these issues is as follows:Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Transfer of Electricity from Eligible to Non-Eligible UnitsThe legal framework for this issue is grounded in section 80IA(8) of the Act, which requires that deductions for profits from eligible power generation units be computed considering the market value of goods or services supplied to non-eligible units. The arm's length principle under transfer pricing provisions mandates that intra-group transactions be benchmarked against comparable uncontrolled transactions to determine ALP.The TPO proposed an adjustment of INR 7,96,94,566/- for electricity transferred at Kota, benchmarking the price by averaging the internal CUP (purchase price from Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited - JVVNL) and external CUP (IEX rates). The AO confirmed this adjustment. The assessee contended that the internal CUP (SEB rates) alone suffices as a comparable and that averaging with IEX data is inappropriate.The Tribunal, supported by multiple precedents including rulings from various ITAT benches and the Hon'ble High Court, emphasized the primacy of internal comparables over external ones when available. It was noted that the IEX is a spot market with volatile and unreliable supply, unsuitable for continuous power supply benchmarking. The Supreme Court's decision in the Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. case was pivotal, clarifying that market value under section 80IA must be determined by prices available to consumers in the open market, not prices fixed under statutory contracts or for suppliers.The Tribunal observed that the TPO's averaging approach is not sanctioned by law and that the assessee's consistent use of SEB rates as internal CUP over many years, accepted by the Revenue previously, must be respected under the rule of consistency. Consequently, the adjustment was deleted, and the deduction under section 80IA was allowed at the rates charged internally.Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Transfer of Steam from Eligible to Non-Eligible UnitsThis issue concerns whether steam, generated as part of power generation, is a by-product with nil cost or a joint product with a quantifiable cost of production, affecting the ALP and deduction under section 80IA.The TPO and AO treated steam as a by-product with nil cost, disallowing the deduction claimed on its transfer. The assessee furnished detailed cost sheets certified by cost accountants, chartered accountants, and engineers, establishing cost of production. The CIT(A) and Tribunal, relying on the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants' guidance note on cost accounting standards, held that steam is a distinct utility with measurable cost comprising direct materials, labor, expenses, and overheads. The Tribunal further noted that steam is commercially viable and a form of power, not a mere by-product.Judicial precedents, including decisions by the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court in Tanfac Industries Ltd., supported the view that steam qualifies as power and has a cost. The Tribunal also referred to consistent acceptance of the assessee's methodology in prior years and related group cases. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the deduction under section 80IA on transfer of steam at cost was upheld.Regarding the enhanced claim of deduction based on the equivalent value of steam expressed in electricity units, the Tribunal admitted additional grounds and evidence filed by the assessee, recognizing the claim as a revision of the original deduction rather than a fresh claim. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and decide the enhanced claim in accordance with law, following the principle that legal claims can be made at any stage and in the interest of justice additional evidence may be admitted.Allowability of Deductions Under Section 80IA and Related Procedural ConditionsThe Tribunal examined the provisions of sections 80A(5) and 80AC of the Act, which mandate that deductions under Chapter VIA be claimed in the original return filed on or before the due date. The assessee's enhanced claim raised during appellate proceedings was scrutinized against these conditions.The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Wipro Ltd., emphasizing mandatory compliance with filing requirements and audit reports (Form 10CCB) before the due date. The Tribunal distinguished the present case on facts, noting that the assessee had claimed deduction in the original return and that the enhanced claim was a revision supported by new evidence arising from subsequent judicial pronouncements and DRP directions.The Tribunal admitted the enhanced claim and evidence, directing the AO to verify and decide the claim afresh, thereby balancing strict statutory requirements with principles of substantial justice and procedural fairness.Disallowances Under Section 14A and Rule 8DThe AO made disallowances under section 14A for administrative expenses and interest costs attributable to exempt income, applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii). The assessee had already made suo-moto disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(iii).The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's ruling in South Indian Bank Ltd. and consistent decisions of various High Courts and ITAT benches, held that no disallowance under section 14A is warranted where the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds exceeding the value of investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal also held that disallowances under section 14A should not be added back to book profits under section 115JB for MAT purposes, following the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.The disallowances and additions under section 14A and their impact on MAT computation were deleted accordingly.Other Transfer Pricing and Corporate Tax AdjustmentsThe Tribunal addressed several other issues including:- The sale of hybrid seeds to associated enterprises, where the TPO's rejection of comparables and application of filters were partly upheld, with directions to include certain comparables and recompute the arm's length price.- Interest on foreign currency loans, where the assessee's rate of LIBOR plus 350 basis points was accepted over the TPO's imputed rate of LIBOR plus 400 basis points.- Interest on receivables, where the Tribunal accepted the assessee's credit period and interest rate, deleting the adjustment made by the TPO/AO.- Additions under section 50C on sale of land, where the matter was remitted to the AO with directions to refer to the Valuation Officer for determination of fair market value, following precedents.- Notional interest income, where the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention of uncertainty in realization and directed verification before making any addition.- Mismatch in Form 26QB and sale consideration, where the AO was directed to verify the facts and delete the addition if found unjustified.- Foreign tax credit claims, where the Tribunal directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to consider condonation of delay applications and allow credit if permissible.Procedural Issues Regarding Intimation under Section 143(1) and Assessment under Section 143(3)The Tribunal examined the validity of adjustments made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under section 143(1) and their treatment vis-`a-vis the final assessment order under section 143(3). The assessee challenged the adjustments made by CPC without discussion in the final order.The Tribunal held that where the final assessment order does not discuss or incorporate the adjustments made by CPC, such adjustments cannot be deemed merged or validated. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to challenge the intimation order separately and directed the AO to verify and rectify mistakes apparent from record in accordance with DRP directions. The Tribunal distinguished Supreme Court and High Court precedents relied upon by the Revenue on the facts.Significant Holdings and Core Principles Established1. 'Preference should be given first to the internal comparables and reference has to be made to the results of independent enterprises only when the former course of action is not possible.' This principle was upheld in rejecting the averaging of internal CUP with IEX external CUP rates for benchmarking electricity transfer prices.2. Steam is a commercially valuable form of power with a quantifiable cost of production and cannot be treated as a by-product with nil cost. Cost accounting standards provide methodologies for determining such cost, which must be respected in transfer pricing and deduction claims under section 80IA.3. The market value for electricity transfer under section 80IA(8) must be determined by reference to prices available to consumers in the open market, not prices fixed under statutory contracts or for suppliers, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.4. Deductions under Chapter VIA, including section 80IA, must be claimed in the original return filed on or before the due date, supported by audit reports (Form 10CCB). However, enhanced or revised claims may be admitted at appellate stages if they constitute a revision of original claims and are supported by substantial cause and evidence.5. Disallowances under section 14A read with Rule 8D are not warranted where the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds exceeding the value of investments yielding exempt income. Such disallowances should not be added back to book profits for MAT computation.6. Adjustments made by CPC under section 143(1) without discussion or incorporation in the final assessment order under section 143(3) cannot be treated as merged or validated, and can be challenged separately.7. The Tribunal has the discretion under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, to admit additional evidence for substantial cause to ensure substantial justice, including in cases where new judicial pronouncements or DRP directions come to light post-assessment.Final Determinations on Each Issue- The Revenue's appeal challenging deletion of transfer pricing adjustment on transfer of electricity was dismissed, upholding the use of internal CUP data (SEB rates) and rejecting the use of IEX rates.- The Revenue's appeal challenging deletion of adjustment on transfer of steam was dismissed; steam was held to have cost and be a joint product, and deduction under section 80IA on transfer at cost was allowed.- The Revenue's additional grounds on disallowance under section 14A were dismissed, confirming no disallowance where interest-free funds exceed exempt income investments and no addition to book profits for MAT.- The assessee's appeals on transfer pricing adjustments for transfer of steam (including enhanced claims), transfer of electricity, sale of hybrid seeds, interest on loans and receivables, and other corporate tax issues were partly allowed, with directions for recomputation or verification where necessary.- The assessee's appeal challenging CPC's section 143(1) intimation order adjustments was allowed to the extent that such adjustments must be verified and rectified if erroneous, and the order dismissing such appeal as non-maintainable was set aside.- The Tribunal admitted additional grounds and evidence filed by the assessee for enhanced deduction claims on transfer of steam, remitting the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.These determinations collectively reinforce the principles of consistency, reliance on internal comparables, proper application of transfer pricing norms, adherence to procedural requirements for claiming deductions, and the Tribunal's role in ensuring justice through admission of relevant evidence and claims.