The assessee adopted the tariff charged by the State Electricity Board as the comparable uncontrolled price for benchmarking the transfer of power generated by its captive power plant to its cement manufacturing unit. The Tribunal held that the functions, assets and risks of the State Electricity Board were materially different from those of the assessee’s captive power plant. In the absence of an open market price, the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in applying the arm’s length price principle under section 92C read with rule 10B and benchmarking the transaction by adopting the arithmetic mean of the rates charged by the assessee to independent consumers. The assessee contended that section 92BA was inapplicable as no deduction under section 80-IA had been claimed for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal held that the applicability of section 92BA depends upon the nature of the specified domestic transaction covered by section 80-IA(8) or section 80-IA(10) and not upon the actual claim of deduction under section 80-IA. Mere non-exercise of the option to claim deduction does not take the transaction outside the ambit of section 92BA  (AY. 2017-18).