TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai 09/11/2021 2. In the cross-appeals the assessee is challenging validity of final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act being time barred as per the provisions of the Act. However, the Ld.AR submitted that, the issue may be kept open as the assessee wishes to primarily argue on merits. 3. Admittedly, all issues raised in the revenue's appeals are common and on identical facts. They were thus heard together to be disposed of by way of a consolidated order. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we are referring to the facts for assessment year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue for assessment year 2013-14 are as under :- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment of Rs. 10,62,65,292/- on account of interest receivable on loans given to Associated Enterprise? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in not considering that the loan was forwarded by the assessee to the Mauritius AE and not to the South African AE, hence the geograph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mparability of the specified domestic transaction (SDT), i.e. power conversion charges with uncontrolled transaction i.e., KERC (Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission) prices, has to be established in terms of parameters contained in Rule 10B(2), by which the price charged by a power generating company cannot be compared to the price charged by a power distributor, more so since the Functions performed, Assets employed and Risks assumed (FAR) are entirely different? 10. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has adopted the price charged by a power distributing company (as arrived at by KERC) as a comparable transaction and that the margin earned by the power distributor for functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by it are embedded in the said price, against the same, the assessee does not perform any function on account of power distribution nor does it employ any huge asset relating to distribution nor does it assume any risk connected with distribution and therefore, adoption of the price charged by a distributor as comparable for the price charged by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... works on Power solutions in the states of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. The Ld.AO further noted that, the assessee entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises that exceeded the threshold limit and accordingly reference was made u/s 92CA(1) of the Act to Ld. TPO to determine the ALP of such international transactions. 4.2. On receipt of the reference, the Ld. TPO called for details of international transactions in Form 3CEB alongwith various other evidence and documents to support the computation of ALP in relation to the international transactions, assessee had with its AE along with other specified domestic transactions entered into with such AEs. 4.3. The Ld. TPO from the details furnished noted that, the assessee is a part of JSW group which is in the operation of steel, energy, minerals, mining and infrastructure. It was noted that, the assessee is engaged in the generation of power and has plants in Karnataka (Vijaynagar Unit) - SBU 1 and 2 and Maharashtra (Ratnagiri Unit) SBU-3. It was also noted that, for the year under consideration, the plants situated in Karnataka was claiming deduction u/s 80IA(10) of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noted that assessee benchmarked the international transactions of interest payment on the basis of External Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. No internal CUP was available with the assessee as AE was treated as the tested party. The method of determining the ALP of the transactions by assessee in the TP study was as under :- "1. The credit rating of the AE (entity using loan to acquire assets in South Africa) was determined. 2. Comparable loans in respect of those companies which have credit rating that of the AE were searched. The average at which comparable companies have taken loan is arm length price. 3. The AE was treated as tested party." 4.8. Assessee had also provided details in the TP study report regarding the credit rating of the borrower (Mauritius AE) :- "2.1 Creditworthiness of the borrower There is no formal or informal credit rating available for the borrower. It is pertinent to note that, although the intra-group loans have been granted by JSWEL to JSWEMML, the intra-group loans have been utilised by SACMH-South Africa, which is the operating entity, for the acquisition of coal mines. In order to estimate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,000 loan and bond transactions. The database provides information about current deals in the market and offers a historical perspective on deal pricing or market trends. DealScan is used by financial institutions and businesses worldwide, including syndicators, lenders, institutional investors, traders, risk managers, treasurers, and other market participants. Search for comparable loan deals Based on the implied credit quality for the borrower and the terms of the intra-group debt, a search for comparable loans was undertaken on Reuter's DealScan database ('DealScan')" Table 3: Search Strategy used on DealScan to obtain external comparables Ratings (Moody's) A3, Baa1, Baa2 Borrower (country) USA, Mauritius, South Africa Currency United States Dollar Deal Active Date 28 July 2010 to 27 July 2011 Date - Tenor/Maturity 2 -4 Years Collateral Unsecured Status/ Phase Mandated, Completed 4.9. The assessee thus computed the mean interest rate of the comparable loan after necessary risk adjustment at LIBOR plus 142 Basis points for the year under consideration. Assessee also considered an additional s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d rate should be applied for these years on the loan advanced to Mauritius AE. 5.2. Assessee objected for adopting fixed rate for following reasons :- a) for assessment year 2012-13, this Tribunal already rejected the fixed rate of interest applied by Ld. TPO and justified the floating at of interest. b) While making search of comparables over the database like, country of risk, country of incorporation tests were applied. c) The criteria used to arrive at comparable was very broad and did not consider parameters like country of borrower, tenor/maturity of loan etc. d) The rate of loan was applied on which loan/tranch basis on the year on which the loan/tranch was first advanced to the AE disregarding the fact that the loan agreement had been amended to retrospectively from the date of issuance of such respective tranch. 5.2.1. In support of the above objection, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cotton Natural India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT [ITA No. 5855/DeI/2O13 TS-33-ITAT-2013(DEL)-TP, wherein necessary parameters to be considered for pricing any company, loans were emphasized. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was Rs. 54,73,82,963/-. 6. The Ld.AO upon receipt of the transfer pricing, incorporated the adjustment proposed by Ld. TPO. In furtherance, the Ld.AO also computed; ● Restricted the disallowance under section 80IA at Rs.200,22,69,287/- ● disallowance u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D amounting to Rs. 14,85,775/- and; ● disallowed depreciation claimed on capitalisation expenses for the work done by M/s. Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects Ltd. [known as Sancia Global Infraprojects Limited (SGIL)] amounting to Rs. 2,65,32,914/- The Ld.AO computed the Net total Income at Rs. 917,29,45,155/- 6.1. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee did not respond. The Ld.AO thus passed final assessment order making addition. 7. The assessee then filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against final assessment order dated 02/02/2017 7.1. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 03/02/2025, upheld the additions made in the assessment order. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by assessee is on the issue of interest receivable on loans advanced to AE. 8.1. At the outs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Bank particularly with reference to intended repayment dates and interest rates. The agree to interest rates in excess of prime Reserve Bank will not agree rate being charged by non resident shareholders on loans to non-resident the South African subsidiaries but loans from non non-residents residents other than shareholder may be allowed to carry interest at prime +2%. The relevant extracts of the regulations were provided to Learned TPO. It was submitted that intra-group intra loan advanced to Mauritius Entity was ultimately utilized in South Africa since JSWEMML further advanced the said loan to JSW Energy South Africa Ltd. [JSWENRSAL] and in view of o the South African Reserve Bank regulation, the Mauritius entity would not be able to charge any interest more than LIBOR from South African Entity. In the aforesaid background, it was submitted that the intra group transaction was to acquire the asset is South Africa and therefore, transaction was at Arm's Length Price as prescribed in the Indian Regulations. In nutshell, it was submitted that due to regulatory restraints of South Africa, the interest rate could not borrowings from any group be more than LIBOR rate for any b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and was required to be rejected. The argument that the loans were advanced from internal accruals was also rejected since the assessee, in the opinion of Ld. TPO, failed to prove nexus between interest free funds available with the assessee vis-a-vis loans advanced to its AE. 2.9.6 The Ld. TPO also came to a conclusion that interest on outbound loan was not to be benchmarked with LIBOR since no company would like to advance loans outside e India without security as the interest rate in India would be higher than those prevailing in the developed country. Therefore, the rates prevailing in India would be an appropriate benchmark to determine the ALP of loans advanced by Indian entities. Although the assessee placed reliance on certain judicial pronouncements for the submission that LIBOR would be appropriate benchmark rate, however Ld. TPO opined that certain vital aspects remained to be considered in the cited decisions. Rather reliance was placed on the decision of Tribunal rendered in Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2013] 33 taxmann.com 187 (Mum. - Trib.) for the conclusion that lending should not be below the cost of the borrowings of the assessee and the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The list of other decisions which has also affirmed the said view, as relied upon by assessee during appellate proceedings, has also been tabulated on page nos. 18 19 of the appellate order. 18-19 with assessee's submissions, Ld. CIT(A) allowed Concurring with assessee's ground by observing as under: -- I have considered the submissions of the assessee, the views of the AO in the assessment order and the material on record. use of intra-group It is apparent from the above that the end use intra loan was to acquire the asset company in South Africa and it is clearly evident that the JSWEMML was not able to charge the interest more than LIBOR from JSW South Africa Ltd. (JSWENRSAL), which had a direct impact on the interest repayment capability of JSWEMML to JSWEL of not more than LIBOR. Further, the assessee submitted that with respect to cross border transactions, the interest rate is determined by using foreign currency rate (LIBOR/EURIBOR) and the same has JSW Energy Ltd 26 ITA Nos. 3714 & 3713/MUM/2024 been upheld as an appropriate benchmarking rate in various judicial decisions which have been mentioned above. Thus, considerin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs before Ld. TPO, the assessee had arrived at mean spread of 243.83 243 basis points over LIBOR which is evident from page nos. 5-65 of Ld. TPO's order. The computation of the same has nowhere been disputed by the revenue. Applying LIBOR + spread-over, spread ALP interest has been worked out to be Rs. 1,64,13,241/-. We considered opinion that this spread over as are of the considered computed by the assessee was undisputed, quite fair and reasonable and the same was to be accepted. Accordingly, we confirm the ALP rate of LIBOR + 2.4383% as computed by the assessee in the alternative submissions made before Ld. TPO. The impugned order stand modified to that extent. The Ld. TPO/Ld. AO is directed to recompute the income of the assessee in terms of our direction. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 stands dismissed. Ground No.3 stand allowed. Ground No .. 4 stands partly allowed." 8.3 Based on the above finding for assessment year 2011-12, the Tribunal in assessment year 2012-13 also accepted the floating rate of interest i.e. LIBOR with certain spread over of basis points as interest adopted by the learned TPO. The against the fixed rate of interest relevant findin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and circumstances in the year under consideration has under gone substantial change as compared to the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. We find that in the beginning, the assessee and its associated enterprises agreed for a quarterly and six monthly associated interest payments with limited tenure of loan. Thereafter, assessee as amended agreement at least 10 times and extended the first has installment of payment of the interest from six months to 31.03.2019. The ld DR submitted that the floating rate of the interest i.e. LIBOR is charged in case of loan of small tenure like the case of assessee in earlier years, where parties agreed for tenure up to three years at the time of entering the loan agreement for the first time. However in the current assessment year under consideration, the loan amount has consistently increased and the tenure of the loan has got substantially changed and first installment has been made payable only on 31.03.2019 i.e. almost nine year after the first tranche of the loan agreement dated 26.07.2010. Therefore, all practical purposes, the loan extended to the associated enterprises is in the nature of long term loan. 8.6 Therefore, the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n transaction of long term nature between two independent parties where floating rate of interest has been applied was brought to our notice by the assessee Thus, the question is whether the assessee has relied on any of the CUP nature of loan where transaction from database of long term nature floating rate with appropriate spread has been applied by parties in an independent transaction. The answer is in negative. The ld TPO has also not compared transactions of assessee with any transaction of long term loan between two independent parties relying on CUP method. The ld AO/TPO is bound to follow the methods prescribed under the law for determination of arms length price and can't adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of interest into fixed rate of interest. 8.10 In above, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter in view of above back to the file of the ld AO/TPO for benchmarking of the loan transaction of the assessee using appropriate method provided under the law treating ng the transaction of the assessee as long term loan transaction with appropriate risk involved. Accordingly, we the ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the transfer-pricing adjustment in respect of interest on loans advanced to the Associated Enterprise, without appreciating that (i) the loan was extended to an AE situated in a different geographical jurisdiction, warranting a jurisdiction-specific search (ii) the credit rating considered was based on consolidated financials and not on the standalone financial profile of the relevant AE, thereby rendering the comparables inappropriate, and (iii) The fixed rate of interest determined on the basis of LIBOR plus an appropriate spread was more reliable than the floating rate accepted by the CIT(A), particularly when interest had been charged but not actually realised. 2. In the present matter, the assessee has advanced loans to its Associated Enterprise, JSW Energy Minerals (Mauritius) Ltd .. The core question is whether, on the facts as they actually unfolded over time, interest at only LIBOR (or LIBOR with a token spread) can be regarded as arm's length, or whether a higher, commercially realistic rate (commensurate with the true tenure, risk profile and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amendment dated 31.07.2015 extended the tenure to five years and pushed the first interest installment to 31.03.2017. Finally, under amendment dated 16.12.2016, while the tenure remained at five years, the first interest payment was once again deferred to 31.03.2019. In effect, what began as a three-year floating-rate loan with regular interest payments was transformed into an arrangement where, for almost nine years from the first tranche in July 2010, no contractual interest payment would fall due. 6. Simultaneously, the loan amounts were periodically increased through additional tranches, and the AE continued to enjoy the use of substantial funds without any actual outflow of interest for an extended period. The assessee has itself accepted before the transfer pricing authorities that, in fact, no interest has been received from the AE for several years, despite the original contractual stipulation of periodic payments. This is not a mere timing quirk, but a consistent pattern of behaviour that is inconsistent with a genuine short-term, floating-rate, arm's length loan between independent enterprises. 7. In light of these facts, the assessee's primary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of the group as the relevant "country of risk", even though the legal borrower and the obligor for repayment is the Mauritius AE, The external loan data relied upon by the assessee is also drawn substantially from transactions in markets such as the United States, with filters that are broad and inconsistently applied. Such a benchmarking exercise does not satisfy the statutory requirements for a reliable CUP analysis. 10. On the other hand, the learned TPO has rightly focused on the borrower geography, i.e. Mauritius, as the legally relevant jurisdiction for determining the applicable arm's length interest rate. It is the Mauritius entity that has contracted the loan, receives the funds, and is obligated to repay principal and interest. The ultimate deployment of funds in South Africa does not change the identity of the borrower under the loan contract, nor does it shift the legal risk borne by the lender. As observed in the appellate order for A. Y. 2020-21, transfer pricing analysis must look at the economic and legal conditions surrounding the tested transaction, and for a cross-border loan, this squarely includes the credit conditions and lending rates prevail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loating to fixed rate without explicitly anchoring it to one of the statutorily prescribed methods, and has remitted the matter back to the TPO for a fresh benchmarking exercise. However, even in doing so, the Tribunal has recorded critical findings that decisively support the Revenue's core case: (a) that the facts have materially changed as compared to A. Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13; (b) that the country of the borrower is correctly taken as Mauritius; (c) that the loan has, by conduct, become a long-term, high-risk instrument; and (d) that benchmarking it merely by reference to LIBOR, without more, is not appropriate. These findings are directly and squarely applicable to the present year and undermine the assessee's plea for blanket reliance on the earlier orders. 14. For A.Y. 2013-14, the pattern of amendments and deferments was already well underway. By July and September 2013, the loan limit stood increased to USD 54 million, and the first interest payment had already been pushed out to 30.09.2014, well beyond the original three-year horizon. The AE continued to draw additional tranches while still not servicing interest. From the vantage point of an independent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chitecture. Several tranches that had been outstanding for six to seven years remained unpaid even as fresh disbursements were made in F.Y. 2016-17 under amendments still deferring the first payable interest to 31.03.2019. This effectively created a scenario where the AE could utilise funds for nearly a decade without servicing even a single instalment of interest. From any reasonable financial or transfer-pricing perspective, such a structure has no resemblance to a floating-rate loan priced off LIBOR. The loan, by then, had assumed the characteristics of a long-term unsecured funding with significant repayment uncertainty, a far cry from the short-term, low-risk reference implicit in interbank-rate benchmarks. 18. By the time of A.Y. 2018-19, the pattern was entrenched. The amendments culminating in the 16.12.2016 modification meant that the earliest realistic interest payment date was now 31.03.2019, almost nine years after the first tranche in July 2010. The TPO has also recorded that for multiple years, including A. Ys. 2012-13 through 2018-19, the assessee had actually not received any interest from the AE. This persistent non-payment, despite accruing obligations an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s respectfully submitted that the assessee's benchmarking of the loan transaction at LIBOR, or LIBOR with an inadequate spread derived from flawed comparables and incorrect borrower geography, cannot be accepted. The learned TPO was justified in rejecting the assessee's analysis under section 92C(3) and proceeding to determine the arm's length interest rate having regard to the relevant market data for Mauritius borrowers, the true tenure of the loan and its high-risk, long- term character. The adjustment made to the assessee's income on this basis represents nothing more than the tax-neutralisation of a clear transfer of financial benefit to the AE in the form of undercharged / deferred interest. 23. Without prejudice, even if this Hon'ble Tribunal is not inclined to endorse in toto the exact numerical rates derived by the TPO using the Swap Manager tool, the proper course (consistent with the approach adopted for A.Y. 2020-21) would be to (a) affirm the legal and factual findings that the earlier orders for A. Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 do not govern the present year, that the borrower geography is Mauritius, and that a long- term, high-risk loan cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the first interest due date being pushed further to 30.09.2013. 8.8. She further submitted that the tenor of each such enhancement of the loan was effectively extended to three to four years from the date of each respective disbursement. The Ld. DR emphasised that the loan amounts were increased through successive tranches, enabling the Mauritius AE to continue enjoying the use of substantial funds without any actual payment of interest for an extended period. She pointed out that the assessee itself had admitted that no interest had been received from the AE till date, despite the original contractual stipulation providing for periodic interest payments. 8.9. According to the Ld. DR, in such circumstances, the arrangement could not be treated as a simple short-term loan. She submitted that interest ought to have been computed on a 360- day basis and made payable at fixed periodic intervals, with an enforceable right to levy penal interest in the event of default. 8.10. In this factual backdrop, she contended that the reliance placed by the assessee on the orders of this Tribunal for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 was factually distinguishable, as the aforesaid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s AE was based on "Risk call" tool, and the references provided in the TP study are unverifiable. Further the spread-over of the rate is without any basis and not supported by the credit risk of the Mauritius AE being the borrower. Further, the agreed repayment schedules were repeatedly breached without any enforcement, rendering the floating rate mechanism ineffective and administratively impractical. 9.3. Upon a holistic examination of the records from assessment year 2010-11 onwards and based on the conduct of the parties, we hold that the intra-group loan advanced by the assessee to its Mauritius AE cannot be benchmarked by applying a floating LIBOR-based rate. The repeated amendments to the loan agreements, prolonged deferment of interest payments, absence of any penal consequences, and the admitted fact that no interest was actually received for more than a decade clearly demonstrate that the contractual terms were not adhered to in substance. Where the conduct of the parties demonstrates prolonged non-adherence to contractual terms relating to interest servicing, repayment schedules, and enforcement mechanisms, the real nature of the transaction must be determined on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to clarify that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the issue to the Ld.TPO/Ld.AO for fresh determination. In the present facts, remand would merely result in a mechanical re-examination of the same material already available on record, without any likelihood of altering the substantive outcome, and would only prolong the litigation without advancing the cause of justice. We therefore consider it appropriate to finally determine the arm's length interest rate ourselves, in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, by drawing guidance from the Safe Harbour Rules, rather than restoring the matter for reconsideration. 9.9. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to adopt a fixed default rate of interest by drawing guidance from the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2017, and the Safe Harbour Rules framed under section 92CB read with Rules 10TA to 10TG of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Even though the assessee has not formally exercised the safe harbour option under Rule 10TG, the principles embodied in section 92CB read with Rules 10TA-10TG may be relied upon as guiding benchmarks for determining a reasonable arm's length outc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest already offered to tax by the assessee for the year under consideration. In respect of other years under consideration, considering the fact that there has been no change in the facts, the fixed interest rate at 6.5% is reasonable. Accordingly, Grounds 1-4 raised by revenue stands partly allowed. 10. Ground Nos. 5-6, raised by the revenue is on the interest overdue on receivables from AE. 10.1. It is noted that, this issue is consequential to the issue considered in Ground No. 1-4 hereinabove. As we have already considered the default interest by applying Safe Harbour Rule @ 6.5%, no further interest is to be imputed on the same. Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stand dismissed. 11. Ground Nos. 7-10, raised by revenue is against the deduction granted by Ld. CIT(A) in respect of assessee's claim u/s 80IA of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on the categorical observation by Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.3.5. to 6.3.7. of the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Third Member in case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. in ITA No. 563/Mum/2018 & 1885/Mum/ 2018 vide order dated 18.09.2025. 11.1. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... element. Hence as can be seen that the rate of Rs. 1.30/kWh is lower than the derived conversion price arrived at in the case of sale of power by JSWEL to JSWPTC and has not earned any more than ordinary profits owing to its close connection with JSWSL. Hence the receipt of conversion charges by JSWEL is in accordance with the arm's length principle under the Indian Regulations. 6.3.4 However, the TPO rejected the method adopted by the appellant and stated that appellant cannot determine the conversion charges paid on the market price of the power. In stating so, the TPO calculated an average processing cost of Rs 0.77 per unit stating that the same should be conversion cost to be received from JSWSL instead of Rs 1.30 which is actually received by the appellant. The working of the same is tabulated as under: Particulars Amount (In million) Total operating cost of SBU 1 4,148.64 Less: Cost pertaining to fuel purchased for Generated Units in SBU 1 (2,559.02) Total processing cost for SBU 1 1,589.62 Total Units Sold from SBU 1(MU) (Excluding units generated on account of UI Charges) 2,061.93 Processing cost per unit 0.7 6.3.5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o its consumers. This was the price at which the consumers were able to procure the power. Had the assessee not been saddled with restrictions of supplying surplus power to the State Electricity Board, it would have supplied power to the ultimate consumers at rates similar to those of the Board or such other competitive rates, meaning thereby that price received by the assessee would be in the vicinity of Rs. 3.72 per unit i.e. charged by the Board from its industrial consumers/ users. Thus, the consideration recorded by the assessee's undertaking generating electric power for transfer of power for captive consumption at the rate of Rs. 3.72 per unit corresponded to the market value of power." ● West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (2014) (Supra)- It was held that "The transfer of the price as contemplated in section 80-IA(8) has to be seen having regard to the arm's length condition, i.e., what would be the price under uncontrolled transactions in the open market. If the paper division has been purchasing the electricity form the Karnataka Electricity Board at an average cost of Rs. 5.80, which fact is not in dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esident, Mumbai as Third Member observed and held as under :- "44. It is noteworthy, in case of Star Paper Mills Limited vs. DCIT(supra)identical view expressed by the Bench has been upheld by the Hon"ble Calcutta High Court. At this stage, we must observe, in case of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while was on the issue of what should be the market value u/s. 80IA(8) of the Act prior to its amendment in 2013, had observed that in case the assessee had not obtained power from the captive power plant, it would have purchased power from the State Electricity Board and in such a scenario, it would have purchased power at the same rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies power to other consumers, hence such rate can be considered as the market value. The learned DR has forcefully submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court having been rendered prior to the amendment to section 80IA(8) of the Act and having not been rendered in the context of Explanation u/s.80A(6) of the Act, will not apply. The learned DR has further submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DCM Shriram Ltd. (supra) and othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rice at which the assessee purchased power from the distribution licensee, GUVNL can be applied as a valid CUP for determining the ALP of sale/ supply of power by the CPP to the Rayon Plant. In other words, the price of Rs.6.62 per unit charged by CPP to the Rayon Plant can be considered as ALP of the power supplied by the CPP to Rayon Plant. Thus, I agree with the view expressed by learned Judicial Member that the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act should be allowed without making any downward adjustment." 13. In the present facts of the case, assessee has charged only the conversion cost to arrive at the market value of power supplied to JSW Steel Ltd., that has been compared with the sale of power by assessee to JSW PTC, as has been observed by Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.3.2. and 6.3.3. reproduced hereinabove. 13.1. In the present fact, what is relevant is, whether the manufacturing unit (assessee), which is a selling power to JSW PTC at Rs.4.86 Kw per unit can be said to be the "market value" in relation to the power supplied by assessee to JSW Steel Ltd., wherein, only conversion cost was charged. It is also pertinent to mention here that, the bifurcation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to section 92BA. The first clause gives the option of determining the market value for a goods or services which would ordinarily fetch in the open market, that is, the price of the similar goods and services available in the open market. If someone wants to purchase the goods and services from the open market then what is required to be seen is the price available for such goods in the open market, if it is available or ascertainable from the comparable market or transaction. Second option is the determination of arm's length price determined as per transfer pricing principles. Section 92BA incorporates the determination of ALP under transfer pricing provision of sections 92,92C, 92D and 92E. It provides that any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub- section (8) of Section 80IA is also covered under the specified domestic transaction. Section 92F sub-clause (ii) defines the arm's length price, which means the price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between the persons ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 10-AA or section 10-B or section 10-BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading "C .- Deductions in respect of certain incomes", where any goods or services held for the purposes of the undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee or where any goods or services held for the purposes of any other business carried on by the assessee are transferred to the undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business and, the consideration, if any, for such transfer as recorded in the accounts of the undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business does not correspond to the market value of such goods or services as on the date of the transfer, then, for the purposes of any deduction under this Chapter, the profits and gains of such undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods or services as on that date. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "market value",- (i) in relation to any goods or services sold or supplied, means the price that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Tata Chemicals Ltd vs. DCIT reported in (2023) 155 taxmann.com 461 categorically dealt and analysed the phrase "or" used between two sub- clauses of Explanation to Section 80IA(8). For the sake of ready reference para 14-16 are reproduced hereunder :- "14. The entire case of the department is that, since it is SDT in term of Section 80I(8), therefore, the market value has to be in accordance with the determination of arm's length price u/s.92C r.w.r. 10BA. In other words, once any transaction is hit by 80IA(8), then compulsorily, the market value has to be determined in accordance with the arm's length principle and not otherwise. If the TPO's contention and the opinion is accepted, then under all the transactions which are covered u/s.80IA(8) would compulsorily be determined as per transfer pricing provision as all the transactions falling u/s. 80IA(8) will be specified domestic transactions only. If that is the only opinion which is to be upheld, then, ostensibly the entire exercise of ld. TPO is justified, that is, the whole process of determining, who is the tested party, what should be the FAR analysis of the tested party vis-à-vis the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... principle. Had it been so, then post introduction of SDT in Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, "market value" in relation to goods or services means the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from the price for such goods would ordinarily fetch in the open market unless such price is not available, then there is an option for determining the market value as per the arm's length price. 16. Here in this case what is required to be seen is, whether the market value in the price charged by the eligible unit for the sale of electricity to another unit can be benchmarked with the price on which GEB is supplying to the customers. From the records, it is seen that the manufacturing unit of the assessee also buys electricity from GEB at the same price of Rs.6.90/- per unit and the same price is being paid to the eligible unit also. The case of the department is that since assessee is generating electricity and supplying it to the manufacturing unit, therefore, functionally it is similar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Tata Steel Ltd. vs. DCIT 156 taxmann.com 262 and not only that there are several judgments of Co-ordinate Bench post amendment, i.e. insertion of Clause (ii) and Explanation wherein unanimously it has been held that the "market value" for supply of electricity / power has to be taken at the price in which the manufacturing unit has been purchasing power from the State Electricity Board. 14. The contention of the Revenue has been that now Section 92(BA) has been introduced owing to the observation contained in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. reported in 195 Taxman 35 that caused the introduction of specified domestic transaction u/s.80IA(8). For the sake of ready reference, the relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under :- "6. In order to reduce litigation, we are of the view that certain provisions of the Act, like section 40A(2) and section 80-IA(10), need to be amended empowering the Assessing Officer to make adjustments to the income declared by the assessee having regard to the fair market value of the transactions between the related parties. The Assessing Officer may t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the price at which electricity sold to SEBs should be taken as market value, the Hon'ble Supreme Court defined the phrase "open market" in the following manner :- "23. This brings to the fore as to what do we mean by the expression "open market" which is expression not defined. 24. Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines the expression "open market" to mean a market in which any buyer or seller may trade and in which prices and product availability are determined by free competition. P Ramanatha Aiyer's Advanced Law Lexicon has also defined the expression "open market" to mean a market in which goods are available to be bought and sold by anyone who cares to. Prices in an open market are determined by the laws of supply and demand. 25. Therefore, the expression "market value" in relation to any goods as defined by the explanation below the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 80-IA would mean the price of such goods determined in an environment of free trade or competition. "Market value" is an expression which denotes the price of a good arrived at between a buyer and a seller in the open market ie where the transaction takes plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce is, therefore, a contracted price. Further, there was no room or any elbow space for negotiation on the part of the assessee. Under the statutory regime in place, the assessee had no other alternative but to sell or supply the surplus electricity to the State Electricity Board. Being in a dominant position, the State Electricity Beard could fix the price to which the assessee really had little or no scope to either oppose or negotiate Therefore, it is evident that determination of tariff between the assessee and the State Electricity Board cannot be said to be an exercise between a buyer and a seller in a competitive environment or in the ordinary course of trade and business i.e. in the open market. Such a price cannot be said to be the price which is determined in the normal course of trade and competition." 15.3. Having observed so, thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court further opined and held that if the industrial units of the assessee did not have the option of obtaining power from the captive power plants of the assessee, then in that case it would have had to purchase electricity from the State Electricity Board and in such a scenario, the industrial units of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of power as understood in the common parlance. The price at which the surplus power supplied by the assessee to the State Electricity Board was determined entirely by the State Electricity Board in terms of the statutory regulations and the contract. Such a price cannot be equated with the market value as is understood for the purpose of Section 801A (8) On the contrary, the rate at which State Electricity Board supplied electricity to the industrial consumers would have to be taken as the market value for computing deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 30. Thus on a careful consideration, we are of the view that the market value of the power supplied by the State Electricity Board to the industrial consumers should be construed to be the market value of electricity. It should not be compared with the rate of power sold to or supplied to the State Electricity Board since the rate of power to a supplier cannot be the market rate of power sold to a consumer in the open market. The State Electricity Board's rate when it supplies power to the consumers have to be taken as the market value for computing the deduction under section 80-IA of the Act." 15.4. Thus, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in 17 taxmann.com 241 (Del.). 17.1. Admittedly, in the present facts of the case, assessee was granted deduction u/s 80IA for SBU II Unit since assessment year 2010-11. On these basic facts, Ld. CIT(A) considered the claim of assessee by observing as under :- "6.4 Ground No. 5: I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the views of the AO in the assessment order and the material on record. On perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that the AO has merely disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 80-IA of the Act in respect of SBU II unit by replying on the direction given by the DRP for the immediate previous year i.e AY 2012-13, where the deduction u/s 80IA was not allowed to the appellant. The appellant further contested the said order against the Mumbai Tribunal, wherein the tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to claim deduction u/s 80-IA with respect to unit SBU-II. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: "3.4.11 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. Upon due consideration, we find that the facts enumerated by is in the preceding paragraphs are undisputed facts. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed after thorough examination of the claim after considering various details, documents, explanations furnished by the assessee. From assessment order for AY 2011-12, it is quite evident that the said claim was initially allowed to the assessee in that year also. Accepting the objections raised by Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG), learned CIT, invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for AY 2011-12, the validity of which came up under challenge before the coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide ITA No. 3659/Mum/2017 order dated 15/12/2017. One of the issues to trigger jurisdiction u/s 263 was irregular allowance of deduction u/s 80IA with respect to Power Plant Unit SBU-II. The coordinate bench, after considering detailed submissions, on similar lines and after relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT V/s Tata Communications internet Services Ltd. [17Taxmann.com 241], finally held as under: - 51. Therefore, as could be seen from the above decision the eligibility of a claim for deduction u/s. 80IA and the bar if any is to be considered only in the first year of claim for deduction made under u/s. 80IA of the Act. It was held that sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19. The Ld. CIT(A) while considering this issue observed and held as under :- "6.5 Grounds No 6, 7 & 8: I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the views of the AO in the assessment order and the material on record. It is apparent from the above that the AO has applied Rule 8D automatically without verify the genuineness of the appellant's claim in respect of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. The AO failed to take into account the decisions relied upon by the appellant in this regard wherein it has been held that the AO has to, firstly, examine the appellant's claim of having incurred some expenditure or no expenditure in relation to exempt income and if the AO gets satisfied with the same, then there is no need to compute disallowance as per Rule 8D. 6.5.1 Further, it was apparent from the financials of the appellant that the appellant has failed to yield any Dividend Income and thus no disallowance was required to be made with regard to such investment made. Further, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has decided this matter in favour of the appellant for AY 10-11 by holding that in the absence of any dividend or other exempt income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g income which was exempt cannot be disallowed u/s. 14A if there is no such exempt income during the year. Accordingly, these grounds of the appeal No. 6, 7 & 8 are allowed." 19.2. We do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld. However, it is noted that the assessee has made suo motu disallowance u/s 14A. We, therefore, direct the Ld.AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent that was offered suo motu by assessee. 19.3. It is noted that, the Ld.AO while computing book profits u/s disallowance made u/s 14A. This issue is no longer res integra by virtue of decision of Hon'ble Delhi Special Bench in case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Put. Ltd., reported in [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415. Hon'ble Special Bench has held that computation of Book Profits u/s 115JB(2) of the Act is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules, 1962. Respectfully following the above, we direct the Ld.AO to not to consider the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 12-13 raised by revenue stands dismissed. 20. Ground No. 14 raised by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said entity and therefore, the said payments were not for the purpose of assessee's business and the same could not be allowed as deduction to the assessee. Since the assessee had capitalized those amounts in its books of accounts and claimed depreciation against the same, the depreciation claimed for the year under consideration amounting to Rs. 101.50 Lacs was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. ...... 2.7 So far as the issue of depreciation on capital payment made to M/ s Gremach Infrastructure Equipments& Projects Ltd., for execution of certain projects, is concerned, we find that appellate authority provided relief to the assessee by relying upon the order of its predecessor in AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. It has been brought to our notice that revenue challenged the decision in AY 2008-09 before this Tribunal vide ITA No. 1334/Mum/2015 order dated 02/06/2017 wherein the issue raised by revenue was dismissed. Nothing on record would suggest that the aforesaid ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate bench, we confirm the stand of first appellate authority i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not been able to establish genuineness of the claim based on any documentary evidence. 20.8. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and the decision of this Tribunal for Asst. Year 2008-09 and 2011- 12 (supra). 20.9. It is noted that, the assesse though had capitalised the expenses and had not claimed it as an expenditure in the books of account. It was based on this submission this Tribunal did not agree with any disallowance. This Tribunal had not gone into the genuineness of the expenditure at that stage. 20.10. Further on perusal of the observation of this Tribunal for AY 2011-12, which is reproduced as under :- "2.7 So far as the issue of depreciation on capital payment made to M/ s Gremach Infrastructure Equipments& Projects Ltd., for execution of certain projects, is concerned, we find that appellate authority provided relief to the assessee by relying upon the order of its predecessor in AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. It has been brought to our notice that revenue challenged the decision in AY 2008-09 before this Tribunal vide ITA No. 1334/Mum/2015 order dated 02/06/2017 wherein the issue raised by revenue was dismissed. Nothing on record would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 2017-18 2018-19 80IA on SDT 2015-16 Ground No. 7 to 14 Para 11 to 15.4 2018-19 80IA deduction w.r.t. specific Unit - SBU-II 2014-15 Ground No. 7 Para 16 to 17.2 2015-16 Ground No. 15 14A r.w.r. 8D and 115JB 2014-15 Ground No. 8-9 assessee had not earned exempt income Para 18 to 19.3 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 22. It is submitted that (Ground Nos. 7-8) and (Ground Nos. 15- 16) respectively are on the issue of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and 115JB of the Act. 22.1. It is submitted that, for these years the assessee earned exempt income and suo motu disallowance was made as under :- Assessment Year Exempt income earned Suo motu disallowance made 2017-18 15,42,78,763 12,957 2018-19 61,54,61,288 71,239 22.2. The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. [2017] 58 ITR (AT) 313 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB). Ld. CIT(A) while deciding this issue for assessment year 2017-18, observed and held as under :- "6.3 Grounds No. 4 & 5 :- I have considered the submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B of Vireet Investments (58 ITR(T) 313). I find force in appellant's alternate submission and direct the AO to consider only those investment from which the appellant has earned exempt income and accordingly arrive at the figure of disallowance to made u/s 14A r.w.r 8D after giving benefit of suo-moto disallowance made by the appellant while filing its return of income. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal No. 4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.4 Ground No. 6: I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the views of the AO in the assessment order and the material on record. It is apparent from the above that the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT for AY 08-09 and AY 10-11 in appellant's own case has deleted the disallowance u/s. 14A while computing book profits u/s. 115JB. In view of the above judgment which shall be binding on the lower authorities to follow, the said addition made on account of disallowance u/s.14A being added to the Book Profits for computing taxes u/s. 115JB to be deleted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no. 6 is allowed for statistical purposes." Identical view was also taken by Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2018-19. 22.3. The Ld. DR reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax Act for completion of assessment-including in cases involving transfer pricing references and DRP proceedings under Section 144C are mutually exclusive, or whether the time consumed under Section 144C must be subsumed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153. In other words: ● Can the Revenue take extra time for assessment simply because DRP proceedings under Section 144C were invoked ? ● Or must the entire process (draft assessment, DRP directions, and final assessment) be completed within the time limits set out under Section 153 ? 25.3. Hon'ble Bombay High Court while deciding the issue observed as under: ● Section 144C does not override or exclude the limitation period under Section 153. ● Although Section 144C provides a special procedure for DRP objections (and contains certain non-obstante clauses), it does not provide an independent or extended outer time limit for completing the assessment beyond what Section 153 stipulates. ● Section 153 and Section 144C are interdependent and overlapping provisions. They must be harmoniously construed to give effect to both procedur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee's contention. 27.2. The Ld. DR on the contrary has informed this Court that she is precluded from arguing the said issue based on the intimation received from the office of Ld. PCCIT Mumbai, which is scanned and reproduced as under: We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 28. As per section 254(1) of the Act, this Tribunal is to decide all the grounds filed by both sides. The decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. (supra)., whether has a persuasive value, that was opined as obitor dicta and was the core issue considered in case of Shelf Drilling (supra) icta is an aspect still open before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for its consideration. 28.1. Be that as it may, this issue relating to the inter-play between sections 153 and 144C of the Act, is presently engaging the consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Shelf Drilling batch of matters, wherein divergent views have been expressed and the controversy stands referred for authoritative determination. 28.2. In such circumstances, this Tribunal refrain from recording conclusive finding on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied Domestic Transactions - Any other transactions covered u/s. 80IA (10) 11 Sale of power JSWSL 2.42 AOM 12 Power Conversion charges received JSWSL 157.09 AOM 13 Purchase of water JSWSL 28.51 AOM 14 Purchase of coal JSWSL 4.89 AOM 15 Purchase of nitrogen JSWSL 1.95 AOM 16 Purchase of steel JSWSL 0.40 AOM 17 Sale of power JSWPTC 2,813.29 RPM 18 Compensation received JSWPTC 5.09 CUP 19 Sale of power JSWCL 12.28 AOM 20 Payment towards usage of port facilities SWPL 1.99 AOM Total (C) 3,027.89 Grand Total (A+B+C) 3,099.88 Document 2 Existing loans - Tranche Disbursements in FY 2010-2011 Amt In USD Tranc he Date of Disbur semen t Amt Dishurted (USD) YEARLY INTEREST 31/03/2012 Interest (Q1) Interest (Q2) Interest (23) Interest (94) 31/03/2013 YEARLY INTEREST 31/03/201 3 30/06/2012 30/09/2012 31/12/201 2 3.1727 3.07420 2.94655 2.88320 One 28-Jul- 10 1,750,000.00 7,430.46 14,034.79 13,748.51 13,177.63 12,614.00 53.574.92 Two 29- Sep-10 1,000,000.00 4.245.98 8,019.88 7.856.289 7,530.07 7,208.00 30,614.24 Three 3-NOV- 10 3,000,000.00 12,737.94 24,059.64 23,568.867 22.590.22 21,624.00 91,842.73 Four 2-Dec- 10 20,000,000.00 84,919.59 160,397.61 157,125.778....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BOR + 300bps 2018-19 6,07,86,458 16,08,58,382 10,00,71,924 LIBOR + 300bps AY TPO's Benchmarking Floating rate of interest Fixed rate of interest Interest calculated by TPO 2013-14 Libor + 600bps 8.23% 16,90,15,853 2014-15 Libor + 382bps 5.43% 25,13,84,469 2015-16 Libor + 352bps 6.71% 26,5-4,57,597 2017-18 Libor + 612bps 7.43% 27,58,37,452 2018-19 Libor + 725bps 9.11% 27,73,88,919 Difference added by TPO 10,62,65,293 11,88,79,424 16,14,57,479 13,30,28,398 11,65,30,537 ITAT order for 2011-12 Lbour +243 and AY 2012-13 L+163 as sue motu offered by assessee as submitted before TPO ITAT order for AY 2020-21 - Set aside toTPO with a direction to treat it as long term loan Document 5 -- OFFICE OF THE Commissioner of Income Tax (DR) ITAT-10, 'K' Bench, CGO Annexe Building, 7th Floor, Mumbai - 400 020 No.CIT/(DR)ITAT/K-Bench/JSW Energy Limited/2025 - 26 Dated :18.11.2025 Document 6 Loan Agreement Dated Agreement Between Recital 1 26-07-2010 JSWEL & JSWMML 2 21-09-2010 Amendment 1 20.00.000 Arvestment 1 or more Tranches 3months UROR 3 03-11-2010 Amendment 2 Enhance loan from 3 to 8 mn 80.00,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oneous premise that the que ponerse Projeter *Cremach/SGIL") allegedly paid to M/s Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects Ltd. ("Gremach/SG-) 008-05009-10 respect, misreads the ratio and 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. This sweeping conclusion, with respect mise dos Tribunal decided the matter in A. Y. 2009-10, a foundation that is fatal to the assessee's present claim. 3. At the heart of the sun theno work was executed by Gremach in respect of the Contract auce controversy is one undisputed fact, i.c. during A. Ys. 2008-09 and Assessing Officer held that no of the year under appeal, assessee seeks to awarded by the assessce. For later years, me asig from the same transactions. To sustain such a claim, the assessce must necessarily demonstrate that the underlying expenditure was (i) incurred, and (ii) capitalised by it in its books in accordance with law. 4. . However, in the assessee's own case for A. Y. 2009-10", the Hon'ble Tribunal has recorded a clear and categorical finding that the assessee had not claimed the relevant expenditure in its books of account for that year. The Tribunal, while dealing with the Ratnagiri entity (JSW Energy (Ratnagiri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be deemed to have accepted) the genuineness of the underlying transaction, or the existence of a capital asset capable of depreciation. This is a complete distortion of the ratio. The relief granted earlier was not on merits of the transaction rather it was granted solely because the assessee had not claimed the expenditure and, therefore, no disallowance could be made. 6. The assessee's present position thus results in the impermissible situation where it blows cold on the same set of facts. When confronted with disallowance in A y 000 os hot and successfully argued (and the Tribunal accepted) that it had never claimed the expenditure in its books. Today, however, it contends that the very same expenditure ought to be treated as capitalised in its books and depreciation allowed thereon. Such internally inconsistent stands. taken to suit convenience, are impermissible in law. A finding that expenditure was not claimed cannot metamorphose into a finding that the expenditure was genuinely incurred and capitalised, the assessee took the clear stand that the expenditure was not in its books, and the Tribunal granted relief on that limited ground. To now assert, for the pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wholly misconceived and untenable on facts as well as in law. The said ground pertained to deletion of disallowance of #39 26 crore on account d capitalisation Of work-in-progress relating to a contract for "structural work and cranable approach road" at the Barmer thermal power plant, awarded to M/s Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects Ltd. The present case stands on a completely different footing, for multiple reasons : a. 1. First and foremost, in the Barmer decision, the Tribunal was dealing with the very year(s) in which the capitalisation had originally taken place in the books of that assessee, and the entire evidentiary record (tendering process, site measurements, Google Earth images, etc.) was examined to reach a positive factual conclusion that work to the extent at the Barmer site. The allowability of capitalised had indeed been carried out ly a corollary of those primary factual findings. By contrast, in the present matter, the Tribunal's order for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case proceeds on the express premise that no such expenditure was that year, because he adu been recorded and dealt with in the books of a different group entity. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asons, the Department respectfully submits that the order of the CIT(A) allowing the Officer's disallowance restored. Yours faithfully, Milyar (NeenaJeph) CIT (DR), ITAT-10, "K Bench, Mumbai Document 8 OFFICE OF THE Commissioner of Income Tax (DR) ITAT-10, 'K' Bench, CGO Annexe Building, 7th Floor, Mumbai - 400 020 Dated : 27/10/2025 No.CIT/(DR)ITAT/K-Bench/2025-26 To, The Hon'ble Members, ITAT-10, 'K' Bench, Mumbai. Respected Sir/Madam, Sub: Prayer for adjournment in the case of Name of the assessee : JSW Energy Ltd. ITA No. : 2364/M/2025, 2365/M/2025, 2366/M/2025, 2367/M/2025, 2767/M/2025, CO 111/M/2025, CO 112/M/2025, CO 113/M/2025, CO 114/M/2025, CO 115/M/2025. Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Kindly refer to the above. 2. The above mentioned appeal is fixed for hearing on 27.10.2025. In this case the assesse has, in their Cross Objections (i.e. CO 111/M/2025, CO 112/M/2025, CO 113/M/2025, CO 114/M/2025, CO 115/M/2025), raised a ground relying on Judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Hon'ble Bombay HC vide consolidated order date....