Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1445 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s.80IA denied - adopting the domestic purchase price of electricity by CSEB as the “market rate” and justifiably scaled down the assessee’s claim for deduction to NIL - transfer of goods and services is a specified domestic transaction referred to section 92BA - assessee company had sold power to CSEB at the rate of Rs. 1.88 per unit, but had sold/transferred the same to its steel division and associate concerns at a higher value, i.e, at the rate of Rs. 4.30 per unit - TPO proposed a downward adjustment and advised a revision of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80IB and AO reduced the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iv) to Rs. Nil - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case MAHENDRA SPONGE AND POWER LTD [2015 (6) TMI 1243 - ITAT RAIPUR] as relying on case of CIT Vs. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. [2013 (10) TMI 5 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] found favor with the claim of the assessee and observed, that the “market value” of the power supplied by the assessee to its steel division was rightly computed by considering the rate at which power was available in the open market, namely, the price that was charged by the electricity board. The market value of the power supplied to the Steel-Division should be computed considering the rate of power to a consumer in the open market and it should not be compared with the rate of power when it is sold to a supplier as this is not the rate for which a consumer or the Steel- Division could have purchased power in the open market. The rate of power to a supplier is not the market rate to a consumer in the open market. AO committed an illegality in computing the market value by taking into account the rate charged to a supplier: it should have been compared with the market value of power supplied to a consumer. CIT-A and the Tribunal had rightly computed the market value of the power after considering it with the rate of power available in the open market namely the price charged by the Board. There is no illegality in their orders. Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - As per CIT(A) assessee had own funds to make investment in shares and the A.O had not made out a case that the investment in exempt income yielding assets was made out of interest bearing loans - HELD THAT:- As in own case [2022 (8) TMI 440 - ITAT RAIPUR] i.e AY 2013-14, as the assessee company during the year under consideration also had not earned any exempt income, therefore, on the said count itself no disallowance of any part of expenditure could have been made u/s.14A of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) on this score is upheld. Thus, the Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. Delayed payment of PF /ESIC - HELD THAT:- As the facts and issue involved in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in the case of Ind Synergy Ltd [2022 (4) TMI 36 - ITAT RAIPUR] remains the same as are there before us in the case of the present assessee, therefore, we respectfully follow the same. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and direct the AO to vacate the disallowance made by him u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act qua the delayed deposit of the employees share of contribution of EPF/ESIC.
|