9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come up before this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07, where it was held that assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA(10) of the Act for captive consumption of power. In any case, whether an assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA, in respect of notional profits on account of power generated from its own captive power plant and utilized by itself, is no more an issue which is res integra. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. v. ACIT (338 ITR 643) has held that benefit under Section 80-IA(10) could be given even in respect of electricity generated by an assessee on captive basis. There is no necessity that power generated should be wheeled through an Electricity Board grid, before it is consumed. Further, we also find that this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 in I.T.A. No. 1014/Mds/10 dated 3rd June, 2011, had held as under at paras 12 to 16 of this order:- "12. Short facts apropos are that assessee had sold to M/s OPG Metals P. Ltd. directly without wheeling the electricity through TNEB Grid. Out of the total power generated 39% was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntegra insofar as this Tribunal falling within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Madras High Court, is concerned. It is for the reason that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has dealt with this matter elaborately in the case of CIT v. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. (TCA 68 to 70 of 2010 dated 07-06-2010). Relevant paras 8 and 9 of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the above case are reproduced below:- "8. The contention that only whatever power generated from the sale to an outsider of the electricity board, and the profit or gain derived by such sale alone can be taken as profit or gains derived by the assessee as mentioned in Sec. 80IA(1) of the Act, has been rejected by the Tribunal in the order impugned. In our considered view, the Tribunal was well justified in having rejected such a stand of the appellant. Having referred to sec. 80IA(1) of the Act, we are also convinced that what are all to be satisfied in order to be eligible for the deduction as provided under sub-sec.(1) of Sec.80IA, the assessee should have set up an undertaking or an enterprise and from and out of such an undertaking or an enterprise set up, any profit or gain is derived, falling und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d." 4. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these appeals of the Revenue, which stand dismissed. 5. Coming to the cross-objection of the assessee, its grievance is that CIT(Appeals) confirmed partial denial of deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA(10) of the Act, for a reason that assessee had sold power at inflated prices. 6. When the matter came up, learned A.R. submitted that the same issue was before the Tribunal in assessee's own case cited supra. According to him, there also disallowance was made for a reason that assessee had agreed to sell surplus power to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) at ₹ 3.16 per unit, whereas, it had sold power at much higher rate to its sister concerns. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal dated 3rd June, 2011 (supra), learned A.R. submitted that rates at which assessee had agreed to sell its surplus power to TNEB could not be considered as a yardstick for judging the fairness of prices at which it had sold the power to its sister concern. 7. Per contra, learned D.R. strongly supported the order of CIT(Appeals). 8. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. No doubt, a similar issue came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich expression unless repugnant to the context of meaning hereof deemed to include its successors and assigns. WITNESSTH WHEREAS. Tne Company was given approval to set up a Natural gas based Captive Power Plant of 17.5 MW capacity at Maruthur Village in Mayiladuthurai Taluk of Nagapattinam District to' generate power to meet the requirements of the companieas who are under Joint venture of its own/sister concern/Joint venture companies situated else where ;in Tamil Nadu and subsequently was given approval to accept their offer of sale of surplus power of 2.5 MW approximately to TNEB The rate accepted for M/s OPG Energy P. Ltd. is the same as that of M/s Arkay Energy Pvt. Ltd: subject to the maximum of the unit rate as per the CPG policy for the year concerned, irrespective of any variation in any of the parameters. The rate is valid up to 2007-08. Afterwards it will be reviewed." 9. It is very clear that the purpose of the assessee was to meet the power requirements of its joint venture and sister concerns and 2.5 Mw out of yearly capacity of 17.5 Mw offered to TNEB was the surplus arising after supplies made to such concerns. Again at para 3.05 of the agreement it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue that such tariff rate was less than ₹ 3.45 per unit. Delhi Bench in the case of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (supra) with regard to the issue of working out the market price in relation to power generation, held as under in paras 12 to 18 of its order as under: "12. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties on this aspect. The crux of the dispute before us relates to the manner of computing profits of the undertakings of the assessee engaged in the generation of power for the purposes of relief under section 80- lA of the Act. The difference between the assessee and the Revenue is with regard to the determination of the market value of power so as to record the income accrued to the assessee on supplies made to its own manufacturing units. As noted earlier, in this case, the assessee has utilized the power generated for its captive consumption by way of supplies to its other manufacturing units and also for sale to the competition exist. .Whereas in the case of' the latter situation, the price fixed between the buyer and seller cannot be understood as denoting the market price since the elements of trade and competition are conspicuous by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n common parlance . We see no reason for not holding so for the purposes of section 80-lA(8) also. 17. In this background, we may make a gainful reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CAIT v. Manmatha Nath Mukherjee (1958) 34· ITR 567, which has been relied on by the assessee before us. The issue before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court was in the context of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944. Shorn of other details, the question considered by the Hon'ble High Court, relevant for the present, was whether the procurement rate of paddy offered by the State could be considered to be the market value of paddy. In this background the following observations of the Hon' ble High Court are worth of notice:- "A market connotes freedom of bargain. There may be a market, completely circumscribed as regards by price control, but within the limit set by the relevant Rule or order, the area of operation would still be a commercially free area. Even where a control price is fixed, it is generally the ceiling which is fixed and not an invariable price. Be that as it may, to say that when agents of the State seize paddy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded by the assessee's undertaking generating electric power for transfer of power for captive consumption at the rate of ₹ 3.72 per unit corresponds to the market value of power. Therefore, on this aspect, we uphold the stand of the assessee and set aside order of the CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to allow relief to the assessee under Section 80-IA as claimed. Assessee succeeds on this ground." Thus, we are of the opinion that the A.O. had fell in error in considering the power purchase agreement with TNEB, which was only a standby arrangement, as the basis for arriving at the market rate of the power disregarding the energy rate at which TNEB Grid sold power to its customers. Ld. CIT(A) was justified in considering that there was no excess charges levied by assessee on its consumers for the sale of power. He had rightly deleted the disallowance of ₹ 2,17,44,237/- on the claim of Sec.80IA of the Act made by the assessee. We do not find any reason to interfere. Ground No.2 of the Revenue stands dismissed." 9. The Tribunal had given a clear finding that high tension categories were charged by TNEB at ₹ 3.675 per unit and rate at which assessee had supplied to it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
