Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the arm's length price of inter-unit transfer of electricity from the captive power plant to the assessee's other units could be benchmarked with the industrial consumer tariff of the distribution company, and whether the revenue's adjustment to such transfer price was sustainable.
Analysis: The transfer of electricity constituted a specified domestic transaction and its valuation had to be examined in the light of the market value concept in section 80-IA(8) read with the transfer pricing provisions. The accepted benchmark was the rate at which electricity was supplied by the State Electricity Board or distribution company to industrial consumers, not the rate at which distribution companies procured power from generators. Electricity was treated as a standardized commodity for this purpose, and the functional differences between generation and distribution did not displace the comparability of the consumer tariff relied upon by the assessee. The Tribunal also followed the binding and persuasive precedents relied upon by the first appellate authority and the later coordinate-bench view supporting the same benchmark.
Conclusion: The assessee's benchmark was upheld, the revenue's adjustment was rejected, and the addition was not sustainable.