TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the captioned appeal. We have gone through the condonation petition along with affidavit filed, we find that the reasons given by the Department/Revenue are sufficient cause for delay in filing the captioned appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The department/revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the TP adjustment of Rs. 45,98,11,450/- on account of inter-unit transfer of power for captive consumption, without appreciating that though the assessee has not claimed deduction u/s 801A due to current year losses, the TPO righ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on takes place in the normal course of trading. Such pricing is unfettered by any control or regulation; rather, it determined by the economics of demand and supply. 7) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the factors under Rule 10C(2) for selecting the MAM, including the nature and class of the transaction, functions performed, assets employed, risks assumed, availability and reliability of data, degree of comparability, adjustments for differences, and nature of assumptions. 8) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., as that decision does not deal with the provisions of applicability of Transfer Pricing gu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and further appeal was filed. B. Grounds of Appeal on Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of Rs. 4,45,31,539/- for Non-Deduction of Tax on Foreign Commission. 12) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of Rs. 4,45,31,539/- on export commission paid to foreign agents without TDS, by wrongly holding that such payments are not subject to tax in India in the absence of a PE. 13) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the amendments by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 9(1)(i), inserting Explanations 4, 5, and 6 retrospectively from 01-04-1962, which clarify that 'business connection includes activities through agents procuring orders, applicable to the remitta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rate charged by TANGEDCO to consumers, following the Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17 [ITA No.47/Chny/2022 dated 30.11.2023] and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. The ld.CIT(A) also deleted the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee had not claimed deduction u/s. 80-IA for AY 2017-18 as it had incurred substantial losses therefore, no occasion arose for determining the eligible profits u/s. 80-IA or making any TP adjustment. He further submitted that the TPO himse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lenge. He also stated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. pertained to an earlier assessment year and did not consider the transfer pricing provisions governing specified domestic transactions introduced by the Finance Act, 2012. The open market price should be determined applying Rule 10C and transfer pricing principles, and not merely by adopting the consumer tariff charged by TANGEDCO. He furthermore, stated that the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i), as the retrospective amendments to section 9(1)(i) introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 brought such commission payments within the ambit of business connection, making the income chargeable to tax in India and requiring de....