Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding transfer pricing of electricity from its captive power plants to its cement unit. The Tribunal rejected the TPO's benchmarking based on supplies by various power companies, finding that electricity pricing is a regulated activity and therefore not an "uncontrolled condition" suitable for CUP method comparison. Following M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (SC, 2023), the ITAT held that the appropriate benchmark was the rate charged by the State Electricity Board (AVVNL) to industrial consumers. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's transfer price of Rs. 7.40 per unit represented ALP, and directed the deletion of adjustments proposed by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP.
The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding transfer pricing of electricity from its captive power plants to its cement unit. The Tribunal rejected the TPO's benchmarking based on supplies by various power companies, finding that electricity pricing is a regulated activity and therefore not an "uncontrolled condition" suitable for CUP method comparison. Following M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (SC, 2023), the ITAT held that the appropriate benchmark was the rate charged by the State Electricity Board (AVVNL) to industrial consumers. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's transfer price of Rs. 7.40 per unit represented ALP, and directed the deletion of adjustments proposed by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
