TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 828
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransfer Pricing (TP) Adjustments - Jurisdictional Issues 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer wholly erred in making addition on account of "Arm's length price in relation to international transactions with associated enterprises" amounting to "Rs. 83,66,17,206", whereas, on the facts of this case, no additions in respect of "arm's length price adjustments" could, at all, have been made to the income of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law and particularly as the learned Assessing Officer did not tinker with the claim of the assessee under section 80IA in the computation of income, and left it wholly intact, the arm's length price adjustments in respect of the specified domestic transactions could not have affected the computation of income in any other manner whatsoever. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law (and particularly as the order dated 28th June 2024, purportedly having DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066188560(1), was never served upon the assessee, never uploaded on the portal and was passed without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansaction, with or between non- associated enterprises, under similar circumstances, considering all the relevant facts of electricity, which in plan words is market value of the electricity, and, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Steel and Power (supra), market value of the power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units should be computed by considering the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to the consumers in the open market and not comparing it with the rate of power when sold to a supplier i.e., sold by the assessee to the State Electricity Board as this was not the rate at which an industrial consumer could have purchased power in the open market": (c) in not appreciating that while the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jindal Power and Steel (supra) were dealing with the legal position before the insertion of Section 80A(6), there is, in effect, no change in the legal position so far as the transfer price of the electricity from eligible units to ineligible units is concerned since the connotations of 'arm's length price of the electricity inherently include market p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... performed, but also to the assets employed and risks assumed, and in thus doing a lopsided FAR analysis only on the basis of functions of the comparables, and thus replacing the external comparable on wholly irrelevant basis, and, in any event, in not appreciating that the CUP inputs furnished by the assessee cannot be substituted by another CUP inputs adopted by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer without putting the comparable uncontrolled transactions to the same FAR test under rule 10B(2)(b) on the basis of which the CUP inputs furnished by the assessee are rejected: (h) in not appreciating that the scope of FAR analysis under rule 10B(2)(b) is confined to the selection of comparables and does not extend to the adjustments under rule 10B(1)(a)(ii) which is only enabling rule for adjustments in respect of the CUP inputs and which permits adjustments in respect of "differences, if any, between the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises entering into such transactions. which could materially affect the price in the open market" only; (i) in not appreciating that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm's length price mechanism only because of its, even if there be any, inconsequential limitations which have no impact on the price at which the transaction for sale takes place between the independent enterprise- the critical factor in the CUP analysis, and (m) in not appreciating that the impugned adjustments aggregating to Rs 2.38 per unit in the arm's length price of electricity on account of additional costs for Government Duties, Coal Costs and markups, purportedly made under rule 10B(3), are unsustainable in law not only because rule 10B(3) deals with comparability factors per se and the CUP analysis does not permit any adjustments beyond the scope of rule 10B(1)(a)(ii) but also because in the CUP analysis, no adjustments are permissible in respect of costs incurred by the assessee. The critical factors being the market price and the factors affecting the market price, the cost aspect of a transaction is not germane to the adjustments under the CUP analysis. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in adopting the arm's length price of the sale price of steam power supplied by the eligible unit i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, and, accordingly, when a specific "variation" in respect of an item is not proposed in the draft assessment order, the Dispute Resolution Panel is denuded of the powers to make any enhancement of "variation" in respect of the same, (e) erred in not appreciating that the powers of the Dispute Resolution Panel, in view of the scheme of the Section 144C(8), does not extend to picking up and making an enhancement of income in respect of an item in respect of which no variation is proposed in the impugned assessment order, and in the impugned assessment order. the "variation" proposed is with respect to Arm's length price for the sale of electricity only: (f) erred in being swayed by wholly irrelevant considerations such as the margin earned by the assessee on the production of steam, which is entirely irrelevant in the context of comparison of the price at which similar transactions have taken place between the independent enterprises, and in holding that "the costing (of steam production) provided by the applicant (assessee) is wholly unacceptable", that "there is no question of any mark up/profit in exhaust steam business as it is a transaction with self and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of such arm's length price under the CUP method, without having regard to the profitability or otherwise of the transaction, and the DRP was thus, in the process of ascertaining such arm's length price determination, swayed by wholly extraneous considerations, and (l) erred in holding that the assessee failed to establish the actual production and sale of steam and, in the process, in disregarding the contemporaneous documentation maintained by the assessee, and the fact that but for the supply of this steam, production would not have been possible for the recipient unit, 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in making enhancement in respect of arm's length price adjustment of steam without confronting your appellant with any relevant or legally sustainable material in support with the same, and by following the procedure settled in law. Corporate Tax Disallowances 8 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer, based on the directions of the learned DRP, erred in making disallowance of claim u/s 35(2AB) amounting to Rs. 3,61,05,919/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arlier years amounting to Rs. 12,25,49,360/- 15 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making additions to the returned income based on the directions of the Ld. DRP as the impugned directions u/s 144C(5) dated 21- 06-2024 have been issued without application of mind and are clearly based on wrong appreciation of facts. 16. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing credit for Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") paid despite specific request being made during the course of assessment proceedings." 3. Assessee has raised both legal issues as well as issues on the merits of the case in the above reproduced grounds. We will deal with them seriatim. Both the parties have extensively argued and made their representation, orally as well as by furnishing written submissions including rejoinders, factual paper book by the assessee containing 402 pages and compilation of judicial precedents relied upon, containing 275 pages. Submissions were also furnished during the course of hearing for various judicial precedents and other documents relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is supplied to its non-eligible units. Assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IA on electricity sales from CPP of Rs. 22.860 Crores. In this respect, total revenue reported by the assessee is Rs. 42.201 Crores against which total cost reported is Rs. 19.341 Crores resulting into profit of Rs. 22.860 Crores claimed as deduction u/s. 80IA. For transfer of steam power from CPP, total revenue is reported at Rs. 62.212 Crores and total cost at Rs. 19.242 Crores with profit at Rs. 42.970 Crores claimed as deduction u/s 80IA. In respect of power generated from cooling tower, claim of deduction u/s. 80IA amounts to Rs. 5.387 Crores which is worked out based on total turnover of Rs. 8.555 Crores with total cost of Rs. 3.168 Crores. In respect of steam produced from the boiler, claim of deduction u/s. 80IA is Rs. 5.307 Crores after reporting total revenue of steam at Rs. 12.088 Crores with total cost of Rs. 6.781 Crores. Accordingly, total claim of deduction u/s 80IA by the assessee is Rs. 76,52,42,895/-. 4.3. For the sale of electricity by the eligible unit to non-eligible unit, assessee bench marked its transaction at the rate of Rs. 8.85 per unit with external comparable of Reliance I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction cost of Rs. 0.97 per KWH on account of using imported coal since it does not have access to domestic coal. These costs are not incurred by the other power generators and thus affects the profit. 5.2. In respect of bench marking for the steam power, ld. TPO noted in para 6.2.1 that ALP benchmarked by the assessee is accepted. 6. Subsequently, ld. Assessing Officer passed a draft order u/s. 144C(1) proposing an upward adjustment of Rs. 7,79,97,476/- to the total income of the assessee. In the same draft assessment order, proposals were also made for other corporate issues, details of which are tabulated below: SI. No. Description Amount (in Rs. ) 1. Deduction from total income under chapter VI A 1,000 2. Education Cess 61,07,692 3. Deduction u/s 35(2AB) 3,61,05,919 4. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) 50,553 Assessed income u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) r.w.s 144B 17,86,30,530 6.1. Against the said draft order, assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (DRP). In the DRP proceedings, assessee furnished all the relevant documentary evidences and explanations for the claim of deduction made u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... implementation which is a standard practice under the post-DRP compliance procedure. Ld. CIT DR has placed on record a delivery status acknowledgment and record of transmission made available from the office of ld. TPO vide communication dated 16.04.2025. Claim of the assessee is that ld. Assessing Officer in his final assessment order has referred to an order dated 28.06.2024 purportedly bearing DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066188560(1) passed by the ld. TPO. According to the assessee this order was never served to it. Further, it cannot be authenticated on the portal of the Department. Thus, according to the assessee, the order by the ld. TPO complying with the directions of the ld. DRP is invalid and correspondingly the final assessment order passed pursuant to the said TPO order is invalid to the extent adjustments mentioned therein. 8.1. Contention of the revenue is that internal working by ld. TPO is a procedural document, recording computation post DRP directions. Electronic visibility of such internal inter departmental documents on assessee's login or public portal is not mandated under the law. The said document is not a statutory order requiring service but a computati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pricing adjustment to the total income of the assessee. The total adjustment made in the final assessment order in this respect is of Rs. 83,66,17,206/- comprising of Rs. 21,44,93,066/- towards sale of electricity and of Rs. 62,21,24,140/- towards sale of steam. The relevant contents from the final assessment order are extracted below for ready reference: "6. In view of the above as per directions of the Ld. DRP u/s. 144C(5) of the I.T. Act. Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of SDT on account of sale of electricity and sale of steam to the eligible unit are revised as under: 6.1. Sr. No TP Adjustment made on account of Amount of Adjustment made by TPO Rs. Enhancement Given by DRP Rs. Amount of Adjustment after DRP's Order Rs. 1 Sale of Electricity 7,79,97,476/- 13,64,95,590/- 21,44,93,066/- 6.2 Sale of Steam. Sr. No. TP Adjustment made on account of Cost of Steam Rs. Enhancement given by DRP Rs. Amount of Adjustment after DRP's Order Rs. 1. Sale of Steam Nil 62,21,24,140/- 62,21,24,140/- 6.3 In view of the above. Transfer Pricing Adjustments are revised as per the directions of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2009-10 which unequivocally affirms the authority of DRP to consider and decide any matter arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the draft assessment order including those not specifically raised by the assessee or proposed by the ld. Assessing Officer. According to the ld. CIT DR, determination of ALP by ld. DRP for steam and electricity leading to reduction or denial of deduction u/s.80IA falls squarely within its domain. On the contention of the assessee that the final assessment order is not in conformity with the directions issues by ld. DRP, it was asserted that the final computation at best can be said to be suffering from coding inconsistency while implementing the directions of ld. DRP. Such discrepancy is in the nature of arithmetical and clerical mistake and is amenable to rectification u/s.154. According to him, such a procedural or computational lapse though inadvertent does not invalidate an otherwise lawful order. 9.4. Having heard both the parties and upon going through the relevant orders on record, along with applicable provisions of the Act, we are in agreement with the submission made by the ld. CIT DR in respect of power to enhance the vari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n from total income under chapter VI-A 1,000 5 Education Cess 61,07,692 6 Deduction u/s 35(2AB) 3,61,05,919 7 Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) 50,553 Assessed Income u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B 93,72,50,260 9.7. From the above computation made by ld. Assessing Officer in the final assessment order, we find that it is not in conformity with the directions so issued by ld. DRP, more specifically, in respect of claim of deduction made u/s.80IA pertaining to steam. A reduction in 80IA claim cannot be beyond what is claimed. However, ALP adjustments are far in excess thereof, i.e. not only no reduction, no denial, but even in negative. This is undoubtedly a "substantial deviation in effect" vis-à- vis the directions of the DRP. The assessment order is thus not in conformity with the order of ld. DRP and is liable to be quashed. 9.8. Coordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of I.A.R. System Aktiebolag vs. DCIT in ITA No.598 and 1850/Mum/2022, dated 02.05.2023, held in para -18 and 19 that the assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law and against the direction specified u/s.144(13) of the Act, thereby....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer has not followed the directions of the Ld. DRP and the directions of the Ld. DRP are very clear and Assessing Officer has not bothered to atleast classify the income earned by the assessee under the head FTS as per the directions of the Ld. DRP and royalty. He proceeded to complete the final Assessment Order based on his own analysis made by him in draft Assessment Order which is clearly a violation of not following the directions of the higher authorities and also the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR heavily relied on the decision of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., v. ACIT (supra) in which the bench has remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO to redo the assessment by following the directions of the Ld.DRP. We observe that in that case there is an issue of determination of arm's length price of payment towards management fees, global sales and marketing activities fees. We do not intend to follow this decision of the ITAT Bengaluru bench for the simple reason that the Assessing Officer will get extended period of time by passing such orders which are clearly violation of the specific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue which is as under: "6. Shri. Suryanarayana is right in his submission that under Section 144C of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer is bound by the directions issued by the DRP and required to pass the assessment order in conformity with the directions issued within one month from the end of month in which such directions are issued. 7. The ITAT has recorded that impugned order is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 144C of the IT Act and barred by time. 8. Shri Dilip's contention is, the Assessing Officer has rightly passed the order within time. But it is relevant to note that the said order is not in conformity with Section 144C of the IT Act. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the ITAT. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Appeal is dismissed. (2) Questions of law answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. No costs." 9.11. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. Despite allowing the legal ground no. 3 raised by the assessee, for the sake of completeness, we take up t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be substituted. The substitution of CUP is thus inherently vitiated in law. 11.3. As far as use of CUP method is concerned, FAR analysis is not really a relevant factor except to the extent that it affects the price of the product in the open market under rule 10B(1)(a). Given the specific mandate of rule 10B(1)(a)(ii), the only adjustments which can be made in a CUP input are to the extent of "differences which could materially affect the prices in the open market". This requirement in Rule 10B(1)(a)(ii) has been ignored. In the present case, FAR of the assessee cannot be compared with the FAR of these unidentified vendors supplying electricity to BEST. The very basis on which the comparable is substituted by ld. TPO / DRP is devoid of a legally sustainable foundation. 11.4. Also, ld. DRP has rejected the approach of ld. TPO of making adjustment to the price adopted by him for the comparable of BEST by uploading the costs towards Govt. Duty and Coal along with a mark- up. This demonstrates that ld. TPO at the very point of taking this price was aware of the inherent differences so as to make the adjustment. And these adjustments have been negated by the ld. DRP. While ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aving regard to the fair market value of the transactions between the related parties. The Assessing Officer may thereafter apply any of the generally accepted methods of determination of arm's length price, including the methods provided under Transfer Pricing Regulations." 11.8. Thus, the objective of Hon'ble Supreme Court on making recommendations for extending the application of transfer pricing provisions to domestic transactions was to ensure that where exemption from tax is provided for income from certain inter unit domestic transactions, the assessee does not inflate the profits attributable to such transactions and the tax authority has a mechanism available under the transfer pricing provisions so as to determine the correct profits of such exempt activity, having regard to the fair market value of the transactions. The intent was to ensure standardisation. 11.9. It is worth noting that entire transfer pricing mechanism is an exercise to find that hypothetical price of the product at which un- associated enterprises would enter into transactions, and rule 10B(1)(a), under CUP Method, and rule 10B(1)(f) r.w.r. 10AB, under Other Method, simulates that exercis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Courts have taken similar view in the following cases: i. CIT vs Reliance Industries Limited [2019] 102 taxmann.com 372 (Bom) ii. CIT vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 2180 of 2011 (Bom) iii. PCIT vs DCM Shriram Ltd ITA No. 566/2023 (Del) iv. PCIT vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd [2017] 88 taxmann.com 722 (Guj) v. CIT vs Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd [2014] 42 taxmann.com 551 (Chhattisgarh) 12.2. In the judgement of Jindal Steel and Power (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that fair market value of the rate of electricity has to be considered at the rate which is provided to the end user and not the rate at which a generator would supply to the distribution company. Relevant para in this respect from the said order is extracted below: "22. Reverting back to sub-section (8) of Section 80-IA, it is seen that if the assessing officer disputes the consideration for supply of any goods by the assessee as recorded in the accounts of the eligible business on the ground that it does not correspond to the market value of such goods as on the date of the transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, learned counsel for the revenue on the definition of the expression "market value" as defined in the explanation below sub-section (6) of Section 80 A of the Act is totally misplaced inasmuch as sub-section (6) was inserted in the statute with effect from 01.04.2009 whereas in the present case we are dealing with the assessment year 2001-2002 when this provision was note even borne. 34. That being the position, we have no hesitation in answering this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." 12.6. Assessee has benchmarked its SDT based on CUP under rule 10B(1)(a), which is rejected by the ld. TPO and ld. DRP bringing cogent material on record and supplemented it by the Other Method under rule 10B(1)(f) r.w.r. 10AB, which is exactly the same thing as "market price" as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Steel & Power (supra). 12.7. The fundamental position is that when the arm's length price under rule 10B(1)(f) read with rule 10AB itself, introduced with effect from 01.04.2012, refers to the market price by way of expression "the price which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025 had dealt with the amended definition and determination of market value having regard to arm's length price using CUP method. This decision deals with assessment year 2014-15 i.e., after the amendment of Finance Act, 2012. In this decision, reliance was placed on the judgement of Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (supra), clearly showing that there is no change in legal position despite the amendment made by Finance Act, 2012 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court. While concluding in para-59, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (supra) observed that rates at which electricity was supplied by State Electricity Board to industrial consumers was accepted being the market value of the said supplies for the purpose of section 80IA(8). An observation was also made in para 56 to note the degree of similarity between the transaction of supply of electricity by State Electricity Boards to the assessee and the supply of electricity by the eligible units of the assessee. The distinguishing feature of distribution companies who enjoy merely monopoly status was taken note of and thus Hon'ble Court accepted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it considers all the properties of the steam such as steam pressure, temperature, mass, volume, etc. The impact of all the variations of the properties of steam is taken into consideration while calculating/converting the steam in Kilograms (Kgs). 5. Therefore, the rate adopted by the assessee for steam using the above rate is arrived at after considering the true comparability. 13.2. According to ld. DRP, 80IA deduction has been created with no real outside sale, no money payment; just based on book entries. Show cause notice was issued on 22.05.2024 seeking various details along with explanations and supporting documentary evidence in support of the claim made by the assessee. 13.3. Assessee furnished its detailed replies dated 04.06.2024 and 18.06.2024 which are reproduced in the order of ld. DRP. It noted on page 100 that "Ld. AR has given exhaustive explanation and has also tendered certain more evidences." 13.4. Submissions made with regard to documentation states the following: At the outset, we would like to submit that the entire data of steam from the point of generation by CPP 10 consumption by the non-eligible manufacturing plant is duly doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al records got destroyed /damaged. There was water upto 15 to 22 feet above plinth level which destroyed various records including logbooks of 8TPH Boiler in Unit II. This fact was also informed to Tehsildar and an acknowledged copy from him is already submitted at Annexure 4 of our letter dated 4th June, 2024 13.5. Submissions made with regard to CUP rate adopted for benchmarking states the following: i. The main factor used for deciding the price of steam is the enthalpy of the steam since the main purpose of using the steam is to absorb the latent heat content and use it for heating process in the manufacturing plant. ii. The enthalpy content of heat is measured in Kcal/Kg and is inversely proportional to the pressure of the steam. iii. The latent heat of the comparable cases i.e. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd is 489 Kcal/Kg whereas in our client's case, it is 514 Kcal/Kg which is higher than the comparable case. iv. The quality of steam supplied by the assessee is therefore better as compared to the quality of steam of the comparable if judged from the parameter of latent heat. v. The comparable cases are within the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the DCS software but is separately stored by keeping daily records. In addition to the above. Hourly production details of steam including various properties for each day are also maintained in logbook. However, it is impracticable to submit scanned copies over email due to size constraints of the Income Tax Email Ids i.e. the size should not exceed 5 MB. Scanned copies for each month are exceeding 10 MB. To provide legible copies, a document can be compressed only to a certain extent. Beyond such a compression level, the document gets distorted. Considering these difficulties, the assessee is providing the scanned copies of logbooks via Pen drive, which contains hourly steam production as required. 13.7. Ld. DRP rejected the deduction claimed on steam by observing the following: a) Failure to establish the actual production and volume of steam b) The cost parameters and costing of the steam c) Sale rate and CUP comparability (CUP Price is lower, Costing is inadmissible) d) Absence of due Documentation 13.8. Direction by the ld. DRP as contained in para 10.5 states as under: "Ld. Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e doing analysis of the comparable for the quality of steam by stating that comparable steam is at heat of 662 Kcal/Kg, while that of the assessee is only 514 Kcal/Kg which is factually incorrect. The quality of steam supplied by the assessee is better as compared to the quality of steam of the comparable judged from the parameter of latent heat. Ld. DRP has taken the 'total heat' of the comparable instead of taking the 'latent heat' which is 489 Kcal/Kg. The latent heat of the assessee's steam is 514Kcal/Kg which is better than that of the comparable. g) On the technical aspect of attributes of steam quality, an expert opinion dated 21.08.2024 from Institute of Chemical Technology was furnished before the Bench during the course of hearing to demonstrate that the steam of the comparable and steam produced by the assessee are similar in nature. The said expert opinion is extracted below: h) On the submissions made by ld. CIT DR, they are mere reiterations of the stance taken by ld. DRP and nothing on the specific grounds raised by the assessee. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties along with documentary evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o bearing on taxability of the assessee since both, sale of steam and sale of electricity are eligible for 80IA deduction on which 100% deduction is allowed during the period under consideration. 14.4. On the quality aspect of steam, it is pointed out by the assessee with the support of expert opinion as extracted above that the main factor used for deciding the price of steam is the enthalpy of the steam since the main purpose of using the steam is to absorb the latent heat content and use it for heating process in the manufacturing plant. The enthalpy content of heat is measured in Kcal/Kg and is inversely proportional to the pressure of the steam. The latent heat of the comparable case i.e. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd is 489 Kcal/Kg whereas in assessee's case, it is 514 Kcal/Kg which is higher than the comparable, hence better. Table of characteristics of steam of the assessee and that of the comparable is already extracted above to demonstrate this fact. 14.5. It was evidently demonstrated that ld. DRP made a factual mistake while making this comparison by taking 'total heat' instead of 'latent heat' of the comparable and drew an adverse inference. 14.6. Thus, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that if the disallowance is sustained for the claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) then, deduction available to the extent of 100% of revenue and capital expenditure must be allowed under section 35(a)(i) and 35(1)(iv) of the Act respectively. Assessee provided working for the quantum of deduction for this alternative claim so as to restrict it to Rs. 2,60,79,526/- instead of Rs. 3,61,05,919/-, which is tabulated below: Sr No. Particulars Calculation Amount (in Rs. ) A Revenue Expenditure 4,21,32,659 B Capital Expenditure 1,00,26,393 C Total expenditure A+B 5,21,59,052 D Amount claimed u/s 35(2AB) in the return of income C*150% 7,82,38,578 E Variation in the assessment order in respect to deduction u/s. 35 (2AB) D-A 3,61,05,919 15.3. Department submits that the assessee has not satisfied the statutory conditions of section 35(2AB) read with Rule 6(7A), and that the deduction of Rs. 3,61,05,919/- claimed without the DSIR's quantification is untenable. DSIR's silence or delay in responding to the assessee's application does not create a statutory estoppel against the Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2AB) is denied and there being no dispute on the incurring of expenditure by the assessee, the same is allowable under section 35(1)(i) and 35(1)(iv). Accordingly, the disallowance is restricted to Rs. 2,60,79,526/- instead of Rs. 3,61,05,919/-. Thus, ground no. 8 is dismissed and ground no. 9 is allowed. 16. In respect of ground no. 10, assessee has raised a claim that depreciation of Rs. 1,95,07,722/- on the Right of Use (RoU) asset has been inadvertently added back to the income twice, once as part of the overall depreciation debited to the Profit and Loss account, and again while adjusting for the impact of Ind AS. This, according to the assessee, has resulted in an unintended overstatement of income to that extent. Department does not dispute the assessee's contention that a mistake may have occurred in computation of total income. However, the said claim was not part of the original return of income filed under section 139(1), nor was it raised through a revised return under section 139(5). In the absence of such procedural compliance, the Assessing Officer precluded from adjudicating upon the claim during assessment proceedings. 16.1. Assessee made its claim in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with nor accepted the aforesaid claim made before him. Further, there was no mention of this claim either in the show cause notice or draft order u/s 144C. On receipt of the draft order u/s 144C, assessee raised an objection before the DRP to consider the aforesaid adjustment to the returned income. Before the ld. DRP, it made an application dated 26.10.2023 for submitting additional evidence including sanction letter and payment receipt, substantiating the claim. However, ld. DRP declined the same by observing that it was not raised before the ld. AO. 17.2. We have perused the material referred above and considered the submissions made. Considering the prayer made by the assessee seeking appropriate directions to the ld. AO for the claim made, we find that the claim involves a factual assertion requiring verification and examination of the additional evidence. In light of the above, and in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for limited purpose of verifying the assessee's claim and granting relief, if found factually and legally tenable. Accordingly, ground no. 11 is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. Ground nos. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Kcal/kg My replies to your queries are given below: Query A: Taking into account the variations in steam pressure between the two aforementioned examples, is the quality of steam from the utility perspective as described above almost similar or significantly different? Para ICT MUMBAI Nohalal Perekh Marg, Melange, Mumbai - 000 019, lordis Tel. : +91-22-3351-1111/ 2222(8) fax: +91-22-3361-1020(8) ICT IOC, BHUBANESWAR ICT MARATHWADA, JALNA GSTIN : 27484314951/12G Document 2 NAA A++ INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY रसायन तंतà¥à¤°à¤œà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¨ संसà¥à¤¥à¤¾ Deemed to be University under Section-3 of UGC Act 1956 COPAS Elite Status & Centre of Excellence - Government of Maharashtra Category | Deemed to be University (MHRD/UGC) National Rank 1 in Atel Innovation Ranking (ARIIA), by MHRD, Category : Gout Aided Universities (2020) Opinion: The quality of steam in terms of utility is generally decided by the latent heat or the total available heat rather than steam pressure or temperature. Considering the above discussion, the quality of both the steam is almost....