Transfer pricing benchmarks for captive power and related adjustments: ITAT favours State Electricity Board rates and deletes several disallowances.

The article discusses several transfer pricing and related tax issues in an ITAT Delhi ruling. It records deletion of the corporate guarantee fee adjustment and software cost mark-up adjustment, following earlier years and accepted benchmarking. For captive power and electricity transactions, the Tribunal held that State Electricity Board rates to industrial consumers are the relevant benchmark, and rejected exchange-based or supplier-side averages, while remanding the matter for verification. It also held that the same power adjustment could not trigger a double disallowance under section 80-IA, deleted the section 14A disallowance where no exempt income was earned, and remanded the education cess and section 234A issues for factual reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the corporate guarantee fee adjustment was warranted; (ii) whether the software cost allocation to associated enterprises required a mark-up adjustment; (iii) whether the transfer pricing adjustments on inter-unit transfer of power and sale of electricity were sustainable; (iv) whether the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA on the same power adjustment amounted to double disallowance; (v) whether the disallowance under section 14A and the addition of education cess in book profits under section 115JB were justified; and (vi) whether interest under section 234A was chargeable.

Issue (i): Whether the corporate guarantee fee adjustment was warranted.

Analysis: The assessee had charged corporate guarantee fee at 0.25% from its associated enterprises and had supported the rate with bank quotations and its transfer pricing method. The adjustment at 0.50% was contrary to the position already accepted in the assessee's own earlier years. The transaction was benchmarked on the material placed on record and the earlier consistent view on the arm's length rate was followed.

Conclusion: The corporate guarantee adjustment was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the software cost allocation to associated enterprises required a mark-up adjustment.

Analysis: The allocation was treated by the assessee as cost-to-cost recovery under the selected method, while the revenue authorities re-characterised it and applied a comparable margin from manufacturing entities. The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided in the assessee's favour in earlier years and that the comparable set used for a pure cost allocation was not appropriate.

Conclusion: The software cost adjustment was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustments on inter-unit transfer of power and sale of electricity were sustainable.

Analysis: The revenue authorities rejected the assessee's internal CUP and applied external data derived from exchange prices or other averages. The Tribunal held that the benchmark for captive power transactions had to follow the principle laid down by the higher courts, namely that rates charged by the State Electricity Board to industrial consumers are the appropriate market benchmark, and that exchange-based prices or supplier-side rates were not comparable on the facts used for benchmarking. However, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh decision in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The impugned transfer pricing additions on power transactions were set aside and remanded, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Issue (iv): Whether the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA on the same power adjustment amounted to double disallowance.

Analysis: The deduction was reduced by the same amount as the transfer pricing adjustment, resulting in duplication. The Tribunal found that the deduction claim had to be examined independently and that the same amount could not be doubly disallowed merely because a transfer pricing adjustment had been made. Verification by the Assessing Officer was directed.

Conclusion: The double disallowance under section 80-IA was held unsustainable and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee, subject to verification.

Issue (v): Whether the disallowance under section 14A and the addition of education cess in book profits under section 115JB were justified.

Analysis: The assessee had not earned exempt income, and the disallowance under section 14A was made mechanically under rule 8D. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance. As regards education cess in the book-profit computation, the addition was treated as inadvertent and the matter was remitted for verification because the assessee's claim required factual examination.

Conclusion: The section 14A disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee, while the education cess issue under section 115JB was remanded for verification.

Issue (vi): Whether interest under section 234A was chargeable.

Analysis: The assessee's return had been filed within the extended due date, and the levy of interest therefore required reconsideration on the basis of the applicable timeline and the supporting material. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The issue of interest under section 234A was remanded and was not finally adjudicated on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with substantial relief to the assessee on the principal transfer pricing and disallowance issues, while certain ancillary matters were restored for verification and fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: For captive power and similar transfer pricing disputes, the appropriate benchmark is the rate charged by the State Electricity Board to industrial consumers where that rate reflects the relevant open-market value, and mechanically applying non-comparable exchange or supplier-side averages is not justified.

---