Held that the other units of the assessee bought electricity from third parties at the same price which was paid to the eligible businesses. The assessee was a captive service provider for generating electricity and to supply and distribute to the manufacturing unit which otherwise would have bought electricity from the open market. The price to be seen was that which the manufacturing unit paid in the open market. Accordingly, there was no infirmity in the contention of the assessee that the rate to be considered was the rate at which purchases were made from third parties. The safe harbour rules do not apply to clause (i) of the Explanation to section 80-IA of the Act. The rates at which power was available through the Indian Energy Exchange could not be applied as these rates were applicable to distribution companies and not to the consumers. The adjustment is deleted..(AY.2019-20)
Tata Steel Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)109 ITR 18 (Mum) (Trib)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Captive power consumption-Supplying electricity to other units-Purchasing electricity from other distribution companies 1Transfer Two methods available to determine market value-Option available to assessee to pick between two methods-Adjustment is not valid. [S.80IA (8), 92BA, 92F]
Leave a Reply