Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 696 - ITAT KOLKATADeduction u/s 80IA in respect of profits of captive power plants ('CPPs') - acceptance of the rate per unit for selling electricity in CPP - assessee had entered into specific domestic transaction during the relevant financial year. And the case was transferred to TPO for determination of the Arms Length Price (ALP) as per provision of Section 92CA of the Act wherein observed and compared that eligible unit of the assessee with same companies amount to Rs. 3.23 per unit has been adopted as ALP and in the way the transfer price of power for eligible unit was reduced HELD THAT:- As per Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd [2023 (12) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT] electricity unit would be charged as per the rate prevail by the WBSEB in case of selling to the consumer without any further conditions. The assessee has taken the calculation in CUP method the Ld. CIT(A) has taken the issue in external CUP method and accordingly deleted the addition. TPO has considered the comparable who are not generating thermal power which the assessee dealt in. Here, the supply power in between eligible unit to non-eligible unit. The assessee had adopted the power tariff which is said to be ALP and the WBSEB was maintain this rate by selling the consumer. The rate was adopted by the ld. TPO in CUP method cannot be accepted as the WBSEB is not tested party. The assessee has only transactions with AE, not any other party. The fair market value is clearly covered in order of Jindal Steel and power Ltd. [2023 (12) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT] and Birla Corporation Ltd. [2023 (2) TMI 341 - ITAT KOLKATA]. We respectfully relied on both the orders. We are not interfering in the appeal order in this issue. The assessment order is unjustified in this issue. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue for ground nos. 1 and 3 are dismissed. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - HELD THAT:- We find that both Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) had added back under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules 0.5% on average investment of Rs. 296.17 Lakh which works out amount to Rs. 1,48,085/-. But all the investments are not dividend yielding as a result only amount to Rs. 25,000/- was earned dividend by the assessee during the impugned assessment year. We relied on the argument of Appellant and accordingly the addition should be restricted to Rs. 3,131/-.
|