9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rate when it supplies power to the consumers have to be taken as the market value for computing the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. That being the position, we hold that the Tribunal had rightly computed the market value of electricity supplied by the captive power plants of the assessee to its industrial units after comparing it with the rate of power available in the open market i.e., the price charged by the State Electricity Board while supplying electricity to the industrial consumers. Therefore, the High Court was fully justified in deciding the appeal against the revenue. As we have discussed in the preceding paras of this order in context to the provision of Electricity Act 2003, that the market value of the power in case of supply by generating units to the distribution units cannot be said to be an uncontrolled market conditions and under the circumstances, the aforesaid observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable in this case also. In view of the above observations, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue and the same is hereby dismissed. Decided in favour of assessee. - SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MANISH BOR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rates fixed by the tariff regulation commission for sale of electricity by the generating companies to the distribution company. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not analyzing the claim of deduction allowable under the provisions of Section 80-IA r.w.s. 92BA and 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and relevant judicial pronouncement of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. 6 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that application of CUP method does not require determination of tested party. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. cIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that a manufacturer cannot be compensated based on rates meant for distributors. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that tariff orders are regulated but not controlled and therefore rates of sale of power by generating company to distributing company serve as valid CUP. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that there is significant difference between distribution tar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted that the manufacturing units, besides obtaining power from the CPPs in question, also bought power from the State Electricity Boards (SEB) at tariffs at which such power was available to industry in their states. The assessee company, therefore, asserted that the CPPs could be expected to charge the same rate for supply of power by them which the non-eligible/ manufacturing units were paying to unrelated independent third parties/ State Electricity Boards. It was further observed in the TPSR that the power used was for industrial usage which required high voltage of power lines. Accordingly, the per unit charged by the SEB for supply of power for industrial usage which required high voltage of power lines was compared with the rate at which the CPPs transferred power to the manufacturing units. From the tariff orders of the respective States, it was gathered that the end-consumers under the same market and economic conditions were being charged @ Rs.7.33 per unit in Jharkhand and Rs.6.17 per unit in Orissa, which was reported to be the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in the TPSR. According to the assessee as the transfer rates charged by the CPPs were comparatively lower than th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arm s Length Price (ALP) for sale of power was required. The Ld. TPO observed that the assessee operated a CPP which was a manufacturing unit and it was selling power to a consumer viz., the assessee s manufacturing unit, whereas the State Electricity Board was a marketing and distribution company that would buy power from a manufacturer and further distribute to the customers. The Ld. TPO thus held that the strict comparability was not met, by the assessee s approach, for determination of the ALP under the CUP Method. The TPO held that the rates at which the power was sold by its Captive Power Plants to the manufacturing units were exorbitant and the assessee thereby has increased its profits of eligible unit and claimed deduction on such profits u/s 80IA. . Based on the above reasoning, the Ld. TPO proceeded to substitute the ALP determined by the assessee s in its TPSR for power transferred from the two eligible units at Chaliyama and Kamanda with the ALP of Rs. 4.18/ unit instead ofRs.6.81/unit, and Rs. 2.73/unit instead of Rs.5.78/unit, respectively. He, therefore, took the lesser rates, as noted above, in respect of power sold by the captive units by making transfer pricing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of transfer pricing adjustments in relation to the price of power sold by the section 80IA eligible CPP units of the assessee to the non eligible manufacturing units of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have also gone through the record. 6. The ld. DR has strongly relied upon the observation made by the Transfer Pricing Officer and has submitted that for determination of arm s length price in relation to power supply by the captive power plants of the assessee, the average market rates at which the other power generating units sell the power to distribution companies is required to be taken. He in this respect has relied upon section 80IA(8) of the Income Tax Act r.w.s. 92BA(iii) and section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has adopted internal CUP method in his transfer study report and that the same was appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower than the price provided in the tariff order by OERC for an end-consumer under comparable circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the rate is consistent with the ALP standard from an Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations perspective. (The detailed analysis for this is placed in the TPSR of the assessee company for the Kamanda Unit for the relevant year at Serial No. 2, page 82 of our Paper book for A.Y. 2019-20) Name of the unit Total units transferred Energy charges per unit Chaliyama (Jharkhand) 298,399,832 Rs 6.81/unit Kamanda (Orissa) 214,897,739 Rs 5.78/unit 3. Thus, the price benchmarked and charged by the CPP to the respective non- eligible units is based on (and slightly lower than) the rate prescribed in the tariff orders for State Electricity Board (SEB) for the respective year, which was at arm s length from the Indian transfer pricing regulations perspective. The details of the per unit price of power supplied from the Chaliyama Unit (@ Rs. 6.81 per unit) is at page 123 of the paperbook (Serial No. 3) and from the Kamanda Unit (@ Rs. 5.78 per unit) is at page 80 of the paperbook (Serial No. 2). 4. It is humbly submitted that the benchmarking of the price of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r book of Judgments submitted and is marked as Annexure: T , relevant Page 233 of Paper book), wherein the facts were similar and the CPP has generated surplus power which was sold not just to the Associated Enterprise (Manufacturing Unit) but also to non-AEs. And such price realised by the CPP from the sale of power to non-AEs did not represent the fair market value of the power realised in uncontrolled conditions. Thereafter, in the TPSR under the heading Evaluation of comparability with external uncontrolled prices at page 124-125 of our Paperbook,the TPSR for the Chaliyama Unit goes on to functionally analyse that the only alternative in the absence of the Chaliyama CPP would be for the manufacturing unit to purchase and procure power from the State Electricity Board (i.e. JBVNL Facility) at prescribed rates. Thus, the appropriate application of the CUP method as per the regulations and mandate of the Statute would require that a comparison ought to be done with the prevailing price in an uncontrolled and comparable circumstance wherein the Non-Eligible Unit (Manufacturing Unit) be taken as the tested party and the benchmarking of the price of power be done based on the SEB rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Plant Rate / unit at which the power is transferred by CPP to the noneligible unit for captive consumption (2) Units transferred (3) Market rateado pted by the Ld. TPO (4) Amount of Adjustment [(2-4)*3] Chaliyama (Jharkand) 6.81 298,399,832 4.18 78,47,91,558 Kamanda (Orissa) 5.78 214,897,739 2.73 65,54,38,104 Total Adjustment ought to be made as per TPO 144,02,29,662 d to theAppeal taken by the department before the Hon ble ITAT, it is humbly submitted that each and every ground has been elaborately discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order, in context of the facts of the A.Y. and in light of the precedents of Co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT and several High Court pronouncements. 8. It is humbly submitted that the Ld. TPO had taken the rates (the average rate of the sale of power generated by the independent CPP/ IPPs) notified in the tariff orders of the JSERC OERC to be the arm s length price. 9. It is submitted that these rates do not represent the comparable rate of electricity following the arm s length principle, for the reason that, no power generating station/company can or would sell electricity to any industrial consumer at these rates. The market conditions under whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r different market, which is the Business to Business (commonly known as B2B) Model. This tariff rate is the rate at which electricity is purchased by distribution companies from generation companies. The conditions of this market are different and distinct from the consumer market. In the circumstances, when the market conditions of the comparable transaction cited by the TPO are not similar to that of the assessee, his application of CUP fails. It is stated that as per our contention, the comparable market condition, in the facts of the present case, is the Business to Consumer (commonly known as B2C) Model. This market comprises of rates at which the ultimate consumers (manufacturing units of the assessee in the instant case) can purchase power for their own consumption. This market comprises of power sold by SEBs, IEX etc. to different categories of consumers. In the present case, the assessee has adopted the comparable rate to be the landed rate at which the manufacturing unit (non-eligible unit)would be purchasing power from an independent SEB, apart from the CPP. As the economic market conditions are similar, this benchmark rate adopted by the assessee ought to be held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tested party as the CPP i.e. the eligible unit. In our humble submissions, the profit of the non-eligible unit also must be properly determined. The only purpose for which the manufacturing unit is taken as the tested party was to determine the market value at which the manufacturing unit purchases power from unrelated third parties. No other function, etc. are in question. It is our submissions that taking the manufacturing unit as tested party for the purpose of determination of ALP with MAM being CUP, cannot be found fault with. 15. It is humbly submitted that the TPO has chosen to take the price specified in the respective tariff orders of the respective electricity regulatory commissions for purchase of power as the market value. This price is heavily regulated. The sale of power under the terms and conditions of tariff orders cannot be considered as the market value of the sale of electricity for the purposes of s. 80IA. Such sales cannot be considered as being made in uncontrolled conditions . The ld. TPO notes in his order that the power generating company does not have distribution costs . When a captive power plant in an industry supplies electricity to its own manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the power generating stations sold power to the Grid, in terms of the notified tariff order, constituted the representative arm's length price. Per contra, it is the assessee's contention that the rate at which the non- eligible unit/ unrelated industrial end-consumer of power at high voltage procured power in an uncontrolled transaction from an unrelated entity viz. SEB, was the right basis for determination of ALP. Hence, the question for the Hon ble Bench s consideration is what ought to be the most appropriate data and the price to be adopted for applying the CUP Method. The dispute is regarding the manner of benchmarking the transfer price of power under the CUP Method. 19. We humbly submit that the literature on the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is reproduced in the detailed analysis under the TPSR Reports filed by us: The CUP method compares the price charged for property/ services transferred/ rendered in a controlled transaction with the price charged for similar property/ services transferred/ rendered in a comparable uncontrolled transaction under comparable circumstances. Whilst there are a number of important comparability standards under the CUP method ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltage and demand as per the Tariff Order of OERC/ JSERCought to be considered as comparable uncontrolled price for determination of arm s length price. 22. It is humbly submitted that the AO committed an illegality in computing the market value by taking into account the rate of power charged by a generating power station. It should have been compared with the market value of power supplied to an end-consumer. This question has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Industries Limited [2019] (102 taxmann.com 372) wherein the Hon'ble Court after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs ITC Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 214, Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in case of CIT v. Godawari Power Ispat Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 551 (Chattisgarh) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of of Pr. CIT Vs Gujarat Alkalies Chemicals Ltd [2017] 395 ITR 247 (Guj.), held that the valuation of electricity provided by eligible unit to another non-eligible unit for the purposes of Section 80IA(8) should be at rate at which electricity distribution companies were allowed to supply electricity to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their orders. 35. In view of above, the question is decided against the Department and in favour of the Assessee. The tax appeals have no merit. They are dismissed. (B) CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd (421 ITR 686) (Bom HC) 4. Question (c) pertains to the dispute between the department and the assessee regarding the rate at which the electricity generated by one unit of the assessee- company and provided to the another be valued. The assessee contended that such valuation should be at the rate at which the electricity distribution companies are allowed to supply electricity to the consumers. The revenue on the other hand argues that the appropriate rate should be the rate at which the electricity is purchased by the distribution companies from the electricity generating companies. 5. This controversy arose in the background of the fact that the assessee had set up a captive power generating unit and claimed deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) in respect of the profits arising out of such activity. Obviously, therefore the attempt on the part of the assessee was to claim larger profit under the unit which was eligible for such deduction a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. post introduction of the Electricity Act, 2003. In our case, it is humbly submitted that both the Energy Regulatory Commissions of Jharkhand Orissa (JSERC OERC) vide their respective Notifications have in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section 42 read with Sections 39, 40, 86 and 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) and all other powers enabling them in that behalf, have passed regulations for the introduction of open access to the intra-state transmission and distribution systems and terms and conditions thereof. They have liberalised the erstwhile policies wherein Generating Power Stations were not allowed to sell power to any entity other than a SEB by defining an Open Access Consumer to mean any licensee or Consumer or buyer or a person engaged in generation who has been granted Open Access in accordance with such regulations notified under the respective Notifications. Thus, the erstwhile judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ITC Ltd. is based on a wholly different set of facts and hence, is distinguishable. 26. It is submitted that in the case of DCIT Vs M/s. Kesoram Industries Limited for AYs 2008-09 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll power to anyone else. According to the A.O., therefore, the market value which the assessee was likely to fetch by sale of excess power to monopoly buyer like SEB represented the market value. In the AO's opinion the rates at which the SEBs were selling power to the consumers were much higher than the price at which the power was purchased from the CPPs because in addition to profit margin of the SEB, such price also included the costs towards distribution, storage, transmission losses etc. 22. We note that the sole basis for AO's inference against the assessee was his belief that the CPP or independent power producer was not allowed to sell power to any person other than the SEBs or power distribution companies. According to the A.O., there was monopoly buyer who alone was permitted to purchase the power at the price determined in the sole discretion of the SEBs and therefore, the price at which the SEBs were purchasing power alone represented the market value for the power generated by CPPs. We also note that the premise on which the A.O. proceeded was analogous to the premise on which the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided the Revenue's appeal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dding on a composite tariff basis. From a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003, KERCs 'open access' Regulation notified in 2004 and the order of the KERC dated 27.02.2007, it therefore, appears that there was no statutory bar on the CPPs to sell electricity to any third party and that too at the rate mutually agreed by and between the parties. We, therefore, find that the very foundation on which the A.O. held that the assessee had no option but to sell electricity to SEB alone was factually wrong and misplaced and therefore, legally untenable in the changed factual scenario as discussed above. 23. The learned AR drew our attention to the chart published by the Indian Energy Exchange (IEX) for the yearly power price prevailing on the IEX in different regions during the year2008-09. The said chart we note gave break up of power price at which the was purchased and sold by power producers, distribution companies etc in different regions of the country. From the said chart it appears that the average power unit price of the Eastern Region in the year 2008 was Rs. 7.53/-. Similarly for the Southern Region of Rs. 7.54 per unit. Similar prices prevailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tually agreed upon notwithstanding the tariff fixed by the State Regulatory Commission. We find that during the previous year relevant to the Asst Year 2009-10, the assessee infact sold electricity at rates higher than that charged from it by the State Electricity Board. The assessee nevertheless made the computation for the purpose of section 80IA of the Act with reference to the price charged from it by the State Electricity Board . In such circumstances, we hold that, when it was permissible for the assessee to sell electricity to consumers and distribution licensees at rates higher than that paid by it to the State Electricity Board, the price charged by the State Electricity Board would be a very good indication of the market value of electricity and the assessee did not commit any error in adopting such price for working out the amount eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act . 30. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and decision of the Co- ordinate Bench, we direct the A.O. to allow the deduction under section 80IA(4) by adopting the weighted average landed cost of electricity at the rates of Rs. 6.35, Rs. 3.72 and Rs. 4.90 in respect of CPPs at Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his process, India is divided into 5 regions : Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western and North eastern region. Further within every state we have a SLDC (state load dispatch centre). The distribution system is carried out by many distribution companies (DISCOMS) and SEBs (State electricity board). There are two tariff systems, one for the consumer which they pay to the D1SCOMS and the other one is for the DISCOMS which they pay to the generating stations. The rate at which electricity can be supplied to a consumer by the distribution licensee and the rate at which the generating companies can sell electricity to the distribution licensee are governed respectively by Sections 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act 2003. There is tariff regulatory commission which fixes both the rates for sale and purchase of electricity by the distribution licensee. There is thus an in- built mechanism to ensure permissible profit both to the generating companies and the distribution licensees. 47. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case ITC Ltd. (supra) had to deal with similar issue of own consumption of power generated by an Assessee engaged in the business of paper manufacture. The question tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termination price at which Power generated can be sold is subject to statutory control under the provisions of Sec.61 62 of The Electricity Act, 2003. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court In its decision rendered in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra) has specifically observed that in the case before it electricity generated by the Assessee could not be sold to anyone other than a distribution company or a company which is engaged both in generation and distribution. No arguments were advanced before the Hon 'ble High Court nor did it dea1 with applicability of the proviso to Sec.80IA(8) of the Act. Sec.80IA(8) lays down that when article or thing manufactured is used by the Assessee himself for own consumption the profit of the undertaking manufacturing such article or thing has to be based on the market value in preference to the price as recorded by the Assessee in his books. Market value for the said purpose has been defined to mean the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market when price of power is subject to statutory controls one cannot ascertain the price such goods or services would ordinary fetch in the open market because in such circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower authorities. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant here to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 80IA(8) of the Income Tax Act: 80IA(8) Where any goods or services held for the purposes of the eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee, or where any goods or services held for the purposes of any other business carried on by the assessee are transferred to the eligible business and, in either case, the consideration, if any, for such transfer as recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to the market value of such goods or services as on the date of the transfer, then, for the purposes of the deduction under this section, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods or services as on that date : Provided that where, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the computation of the profits and gains of the eligible business in the manner hereinbefore specified presents exceptional difficulties, the Assessing Officer may compute such profits and gains on such reasonable basis as he may deem fit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntered into by the AE s with the unrelated parties for buying and selling similar goods and service under similar circumstances. However when such internal data was not available then one may apply external CUP which involves comparison of price paid/charged between the two unrelated parties in uncontrolled condition for transactions entered into between the AE s. In the instant case as noted elsewhere hereinabove that the CPP bench marked the transaction with non eligible unit at a rate at which power is supplied by the SEB to the non eligible unit and therefore is the prevailing rate at which the power has been supplied by the SEB to other parties/factories located in the same geographical areas/location. It is also undisputed that both CPP as well as SEB supplied/sold power during the year and thus there is no timing difference as well. Thus we are in agreement with the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A) that transactions of purchase of power by the non eligible unit from SEB fulfill the internal CUP parameters vis product comparability and similar market conditions and thus the ALC paid by the non eligible unit to the SEB represented the internal comparable ALP. 5.7. We note that the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , CIT vs. Godawari Power Ispat Ltd. (supra) and Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. in ITA No. 2180 of 2011 (Bombay- High Court) and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of DCIT vs. Birla Corporation Ltd. in ITA No. 971/Kol/2012 for AY 2008-09. We note that in all the above decisions, the AALC at which the power is purchased by the non-eligible unit of the assessee was considered to be the fair market value transfer price of power supplied by the eligible unit to the non-eligible unit. Before us, the Ld. A.R also argued that non-eligible unit has to be held as a tested party and AALC at which the power was purchased by the tested party from SEB/ third party is the most appropriate ALP to bench mark the transfer of power supplied by eligible unit to non- eligible unit. The said view of the assessee is squarely covered by the two decisions of Hon ble Benches namely Star Paper Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) and DCIT vs. BalrampurChini Mills Ltd. (supra). Having considered the ratio laid down, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is a very reasoned and speaking order passed after following the decision of various Hon ble High Courts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed from State Electricity Boards. Here, in the facts and circumstances, in our view, the arm s length price could not be determined by taking the average market rates of power supply units to distribution companies as the assessee is not into the said business of selling of power to distribution companies. The arm s length price in this case, in our view, has to be determined taking \into mind the business perspective of the assessee which was to get uninterrupted power and to save cost of electricity paid to the State Electricity Boards. When we look into the facts in this perspective, the relevant factor in this case would be the market price of the power at which the assessee s manufacturing units purchased the power from the market or from the State Electricity Boards. Moreover, as per the Electricity Act, 2003 the captive power plants are kept outside of the regulatory mechanism and are free to supply electricity to its associate enterprises/manufacturing units or to the contracting parties and consumers, at the rates mutually settled between them. The said captive power plants are not mandatorily required to supply the electricity to the distribution companies and even are e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h open access is provided by the State Commission under sub-section (2) of section 42, on payment of the transmission charges and a surcharge thereon, as may be specified by the State Commission: .. Provided also that such surcharge shall not be leviable in case open access is provided to a person who has established a captive generating plant for carrying the electricity to the destination of his own use. Similar provisions for non-payment of surcharge has been made in case of state transmission utility u/s 39 and in respect of transmission licensees u/s 40 of the Electricity Act 2003. Sections 42 49 of the said Act are also relevant which are reproduced as under: Section 42. (Duties of distribution licensee and open access): --- (1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act. (2) The State Commission shall introduce open access in such phases and subject to such conditions, (including the cross subsidies, and other operational constraints) as may be specified within one year of the appoin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. (6) Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances under sub-section (5), may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission. (7) The Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the consumer within such time and in such manner as may be specified by the State Commission. (8) The provisions of sub-sections (5),(6) and (7) shall be without prejudice to right which the consumer may have apart from the rights conferred upon him by those sub-sections. Section 49. (Agreement with respect to supply or purchase of electricity): Where the Appropriate Commission has allowed open access to certain consumers under section 42, such consumers, notwithstanding the provisions contained in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 62, may enter into an agreement with any person for supply or purchase of electricity on such terms and conditions (including tariff) as may be agreed upon by them. 8.5 A perusal of the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal is reproduced as under: 21. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the document in the paper book which inter alia contained Electricity Act, 2003, KERC Regulations 2004, copy of the KERCs order dated 27.02.2007 approving open access to CPPs for supply of electricity etc. The bone of contention between the parties is the adoption of the most appropriate rate at which sale of electricity would be valued for the purpose of determining the profitability of all the four CPPs. It is not in dispute that during the relevant year, the assessee operated four CPPs in the State of Karnataka, Orissa and West Bengal and the power generated was entirely supplied and consumed by manufacturing undertakings of the assessee. The A.O. per-se did not dispute the fact that the CPPs constituted separate and distinct undertakings and were eligible for claiming the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. However, on perusal of the working of the profitability, the A.O. found that the transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissions and the power generating companies had no option or discretion due to determine the selling rate. However, in the case in hand there is a change of scenario before us and the learned AR of the assessee in his detailed presentation (supra) has brought out the salient features of the Electricity Act 2003 by which CPPs were granted open access by law. In terms of the open access granted, the power generating companies were free to sell the power to any third party at the prices mutually agreed and in such case, the regulatory commission was required to determine only the wheeling charges which the transmission companies / authorities could levy. In this regard, the useful reference may also be made to KERC s order dated 27.02.2007. In this order, the commission has explained the salient features of the Natural Electricity Policy issued by the Government of India on 12.02.2005 with regard to captive generation. The said order explains that the Electricity Act 2003, put in place highly liberal frame work for power generation wherein there is no requirement of licensing for generation of power. The requirement of techno- economic clearance of CEA for thermal generation was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. held as follows: 5.6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book and the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 as detailed supra. We find that the main thrust of order of ld CITA was by placing reliance on the decision of this tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd, which was modified by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. The ld AR fairly brought to our attention the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITC Ltd before us and had duly distinguished the same as not applicable to the facts of the instant case , as admittedly, the Asst Year before Hon ble Calcutta High Court in ITC Ltd was Asst Year 2002-03. The said decision in ITC Ltd for Asst Year 2002-03 was rendered by taking into account the relevant provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. These Acts were repealed and a new Electricity Act 2003 was introduced with effect from 10.6.2003. Hence for the Asst Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 (i.e the years under appeal before us) , the assessee would be governed by the provisions of Electricity Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there must be a price fluctuating according to the pressures of supply and demand. In that case Lord Denning also explained the concept of market value in the following words (page 264): What is the market value of these stamps ? . . . It does not connote a market where buyers and sellers congregate. The market value here means the price at which the goods could be expected to be bought and sold as between willing seller and willing buyer, even though there may be only one seller or one buyer, and even though one or both may be hypothetical rather than real. These are the principles universally applied to find out the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold in the open market. For determination of market value, there is no pre-requisite that an open market where buyers and sellers congregate to buy and sell goods must exist . In the instant case, the assessee- company actually bought sugarcane from a large number of growers year after year in the ordinary course of business. The price at which it buys sugarcane must be taken to be the market price. If the price is controlled by the Sugarcane Control Order, the controlled price will be taken as the market price, because i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the assessee to derive profits and gains by working out the cost of such consumption of power in as much as the assessee is able to save to that extent which would certainly by covered by section 80IA(1). The Hon ble High Court thus upheld the assessee s claim for deduction under section 80IA by way of deduction by the value of such units of power consumed by its own plant by way of profits and gains for the relevant assessment years. 26. We find that the facts of the assessee s case are similar to the facts involved in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra). The basic reason is adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee s case was the same as in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra) and we note that the same appellate authority has passed the order in both case i.e. in assessee s case and the Birla Corporation Ltd. Therefore, following the Co-ordinate Bench decision Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra), we uphold the impugned of Ld. CIT(A) and direction of the Ld. CIT(A) VI, Kolkata and dismiss ground no 3 of revenue s appeal. 9. It is to be noted here that the sale of electricity by the generating companies to the distribut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eel Power Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.13771 of 2015 Ors, decided on 06.12.2023 though discussing the provisions of Electricity Act, 1948 have made the following observations on this issue: 27. Another way of looking at the issue is, if the industrial units of the assessee did not have the option of obtaining power from the captive power plants of the assessee, then in that case it would have had to purchase electricity from the State Electricity Board. In such a scenario, the industrial units of the assessee would have had to purchase power from the State Electricity Board at the same rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied to the industrial consumers i.e., Rs. 3.72 per unit. 28. Thus, market value of the power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units should be computed by considering the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to the consumers in the open market and not comparing it with the rate of power when sold to a supplier i.e., sold by the assessee to the State Electricity Board as this was not the rate at which an industrial consumer could have purchased power in the open market. It is clear that the rate at which power was supplied to a sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e market value of electricity. It should not be compared with the rate of power sold to or supplied to the State Electricity Board since the rate of power to a supplier cannot be the market rate of power sold to a consumer in the open market. The State Electricity Board s rate when it supplies power to the consumers have to be taken as the market value for computing the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 31. That being the position, we hold that the Tribunal had rightly computed the market value of electricity supplied by the captive power plants of the assessee to its industrial units after comparing it with the rate of power available in the open market i.e., the price charged by the State Electricity Board while supplying electricity to the industrial consumers. Therefore, the High Court was fully justified in deciding the appeal against the revenue. 11. As we have discussed in the preceding paras of this order in context to the provision of Electricity Act 2003, that the market value of the power in case of supply by generating units to the distribution units cannot be said to be an uncontrolled market conditions and under the circumstances, the aforesaid observations of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
