Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Wonder Cement Limited, engaged in cement production, used electricity from its captive power plants for its industrial units and adopted a Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method based on the average price charged by the State Electricity Board (SEB) to its industrial consumers. The TPO, however, benchmarked the transaction using supplies made by other power companies. The revenue's appeal is against the CIT(A)'s order which reversed the AO's addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the market value of electricity supplied by the SEB to industrial consumers should be construed as the market value. It further held that the price at which power is sold to a supplier (SEB) cannot be considered the market rate for a consumer. Therefore, the TPO's determination of arm's length price was not sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the price at which the State Electricity Board supplies power to industrial consumers is the market value for determining arm's length price and for calculating deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 92CA, 80IA, 115JB, 92F, 80A(6), 43A, 43, 86, 92CA(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR
This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), Jaipur-5 dated 14.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1.Ground-(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) (by referring decision of ITAT) is right in holding that the TPO determining the Transfer Pricing cannot take another suitable methodology with cogent reason?
Ground-(ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) (by referring decision of ITAT) is right in holding that market value adopted by assessee is correct and revenue is not permitted to substitute the said value with another value even if other facts to determining arm's length price become available and specifically when the amendment to section 80A(6) was made by inserting clause (iii) in Explanation w.e.f. 01.04.2013 specifically holding that the arm's length price for specified domestic transactions had to be determined as per clause (ii) of section 92F? 3. Ground-(iii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) (by referring decision of ITAT) is justified in holding that for making a claim u/s 801A(8), when a basket of market value is available, it is on the discretion of the assessee to adopt any one of these as market value without appreciating the fact that Arm's length price is to be determined taking in to account various crucial factors which include assets employed, risks assumed, laws and government orders in force etc., and such factor make the market value taken by the assessee illogical and wrong since the assessee has taken the purchase rate of end customers as ALP instead of the rate at which power is sold by generating units? 4. Ground-(iv) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) (by referring decision of ITAT) is justified in deleting the addition and holding that for making a claim u/s 801A(8) when a basket market value is available, it is the discretion of the assessee to adopt any one of these as market 4 value without appreciating that for comparability under CUP, there needs to be strict comparability of economic factors in transactions and such comparison renders the market value taken by the assessee as non-comparable price since assessee has compared purchasing cost of other units to selling price of its own captive power plants? 5. Ground-(v) the appellant craves leave to add, amend or 5 withdraw any of the ground of appeal
during the course of appellant proceeding.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 31.12.2020 declaring income at Rs. 4,85,16,700/- under the normal provisions of the Act and paid MAT on book profit of Rs. 591,06,16,255/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the year under consideration the assessee was engaged in the business of cement production in the name and style of M/s.
Wonder Cements Ltd. The case was selected for scrutiny to examine “the reasons related to specified domestic transactions under the T.P. Risk Parameters, alongwith other reasons”.
Since the case contained specified domestic transactions as one of the parameters for scrutiny, matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Thereafter, the TPO, Delhi has passed the order u/s. 92CA (3) of the Act vide dated: 10.06.2023. In compliance to the order of the TPO, the AO made an addition of Rs. 51, 69, 75,420/- to the normal income of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), Jaipur-5, who in turn reversed the order of the AO and the appeal of the assessee, was allowed. Now, the Revenue being aggrieved with this order of the Ld. CIT (A) preferred the present appeal before us.
We have gone through the order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, Order of the TPO passed u/s. 92 CA (3) of the Act and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s. 250 of the Act. It is observed that the assessee charged Rs. 7.40 per unit for transfer of electricity from all types of power plant to cement unit considering the rate charged by the state electricity department through its distribution company M/s. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.(AVVNL) to the assessee, while the TPO taken the same at Rs. 6.14 and Rs. 5.52 for thermal based power, waste heat recovery system (WHRS) and solar power plant and wind energy plant respectively on the basis of power supplied by third parties to the state distribution companies. This resulted in an addition of Rs. 33,57,04,374/-, Rs. 12,42,23,360/-, Rs. 70,75,756/- and Rs. 4,99,71,390/- against Thermal power, WHRS, Solar Power and Wind Energy respectively.
All the grounds raised by the Revenue are inter-related, hence adjudicated together for sake of simplicity and harmony in various provisions of the statute. The assessee has established 4 power plants as mentioned (supra) for captive power supplies to its cement unit at Nimbahera. These units are eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, whereas the cement plant was not eligible for the same. Total electricity generation of these power plants are being used in assessee’s cement plant only and there is no outside sale of the electricity. The assessee adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, based on the average price charged by the AVVNL to the cement plant, i.e. Rs. 7.40 per unit. Whereas the TPO, benchmarked the transaction based on the supplies made by the Sasan Power Ltd., Shree Cement Ltd., Coastal Gujarat Tata/ NTPC/ PTC and Reliance etc.
Similar issue has been discussed by various coordinate benches and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court in following cases as under:
CIT vs. M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (2023) 335 CTR 1917 (SC) CIT vs. M/s. Shah Alloys Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2094 of 2010] (Guj.) CIT vs. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. [ITA No. 1056 of 2016] (Bom.) CIT vs. M/s. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. 223 Taxman 234 (Chat.) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Cements Ltd. (vide order dated: 22.08.2017) Coordinate Bench (Jaipur) in the case of M/s. Shree Cements Ltd. (vide order dated: 07.08.2023 & 21.02.2024) Coordinate Bench (Jaipur) in the case of M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd. (vide order dated: 15.01.2025)
For reference we deem it fit to discuss and reproduce the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and latest decision on similar facts pronounced by the coordinate bench as under:
CIT vs. M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (2023) 335 CTR 1917 (SC) There is no dispute that assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-IA for the relevant assessment year. The only issue is with regard to the quantum of profits and gains of the eligible business of the assessee and the resultant deduction under section 80-IA. The higher the profits and gains, the higher would be the quantum of deduction. Conversely, if the profits and gains of the eligible business of the assessee is determined at a lower figure, the deduction under section 80-IA would be on the lower side. Assessee had computed the profits and gains by taking Rs. 3.72 as the price of electricity per unit supplied by its captive power plants to its industrial units. The basis for taking this figure was that it was the rate at which the State Electricity Board was supplying electricity to its industrial consumers. Assessing officer repudiated such claim. According to him, the rate at which the assessee had supplied the surplus electricity to the State Electricity Board i.e., Rs. 2.32 per unit, should be the market value of electricity. Assessee cannot claim two rates for the same good i.e., electricity. When it supplies electricity to the State Electricity Board at the rate of Rs. 2.32 per unit, it cannot claim Rs. 3.72 per unit for supplying the same electricity to its sister concern i.e., the industrial units. This view of the assessing officer was confirmed by the CIT (A). [Para 20] It is noticed that the Tribunal had rejected such contention of the revenue which has been affirmed by the High Court. In this proceeding, it is to be decided as to which of the two views is the correct one. [Para 21] Reverting back to sub-section (8) of Section 80-IA, it is seen that if the assessing officer disputes the consideration for supply of any goods by the assessee as recorded in the accounts of the eligible business on the ground that it does not correspond to the market value of such goods as on the date of the transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm's length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good at the market value as per his determination. The explanation below the proviso defines market value in relation to any goods to mean the price that such goods would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market. Thus, as per this definition, the market value of any goods would mean the price that such goods would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market. [Para 22] This brings to the fore as to what do we mean by the expression "open market" which is not a defined expression. [Para 23] Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines the expression "open market" to mean a market in which any buyer or seller may trade and in which prices and product availability are determined by free competition. P. Ramanatha Aiyer's Advanced Law Lexicon has also defined the expression "open market" to mean a market in which goods are available to be bought and sold by anyone who cares to. Prices in an open market are determined by the laws of supply and demand. [Para 24] Therefore, the expression "market value" in relation to any goods as defined by the explanation below the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 80-IA would mean the price of such goods determined in an environment of free trade or competition. "Market value" is an expression which denotes the price of a good arrived at between a buyer and a seller in the open market i.e., where the transaction takes place in the normal course of trading. Such pricing is unfettered by any control or regulation; rather, it is determined by the economics of demand and supply. [Para 25] Under the electricity regime in force, an industrial consumer could purchase electricity from the State Electricity Board or avail electricity produced by its own captive power generating unit. No other entity could supply electricity to any consumer. A private person could set up a power generating unit having restrictions on the use of power generated and at the same time, the tariff at which the said power plant could supply surplus power to the State Electricity Board was also liable to be determined in accordance with the statutory requirements. In the present case, as the electricity from the State Electricity Board was inadequate to meet power requirements of the industrial units of the assessee, it set up captive power plants to supply electricity to its industrial units. However, the captive power plants of the assessee could sell or supply the surplus electricity (after supplying electricity to its industrial units) to the State Electricity Board only and not to any other authority or person. Therefore, the surplus electricity had to be compulsorily supplied by the assessee to the State Electricity Board and in terms of Sections 43 and 43A of the 1948 Act, a contract was entered into between the assessee and the State Electricity Board for supply of the surplus electricity by the former to the latter. The price for supply of such electricity by the assessee to the State Electricity Board was fixed at Rs. 2.32 per unit as per the contract. This price is, therefore, a contracted price. Further, there was no room or any elbow space for negotiation on the part of the assessee. Under the statutory regime in place, the assessee had no other alternative but to sell or supply the surplus electricity to the State Electricity Board. Being in a dominant position, the State Electricity Board could fix the price to which the assessee really had little or no scope to either oppose or negotiate. Therefore, it is evident that determination of tariff between the assessee and the State Electricity Board cannot be said to be an exercise between a buyer and a seller in a competitive environment or in the ordinary course of trade and business i.e., in the open market. Such a price cannot be said to be the price which is determined in the normal course of trade and competition. [Para 26] 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 42 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. [Para 27] 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 supplier could not be the market rate of electricity purchased by a consumer in the open market. On the contrary, the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to the industrial consumers has to be taken as the market value for computing deduction under section 80-IA. [Para 28] Section 43A of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (i.e. 1948 Act) lays down the terms and conditions for determining the tariff for supply of electricity. The said provision makes it clear that tariff is determined on the basis of various parameters. That apart, it is only upon granting of specific consent, that a private entity could set up a power generating unit. However, such a unit would have restrictions not only on the use of the power generated but also regarding determination of tariff at which the power generating unit could supply surplus power to the concerned State Electricity Board. Thus, determination of tariff of the surplus electricity between a power generating company and the State Electricity Board cannot be said to be an exercise between a buyer and a seller under a competitive environment or a transaction carried out in the ordinary course of trade and commerce. It is determined in an environment where one of the players has the compulsive legislative mandate not only in the realm of enforcing buying but also to set the buying tariff in terms of the extant statutory guidelines. Therefore, the price determined in such a scenario cannot be equated with a situation where the price is determined in the normal course of trade and competition. Consequently, the price determined as per the power purchase agreement cannot be equated with the market value of power as understood in the common parlance. The price at which the surplus power supplied by the assessee, to the State Electricity Board was determined entirely by the State Electricity Board in terms of the statutory regulations and the contract. Such a price cannot be equated with the market value as is understood for the purpose of section 80-IA (8). On the contrary, the rate at which State Electricity Board supplied electricity to the industrial consumers would have to be taken as the market value for computing deduction under section 80-IA. [Para 29] Thus on a careful consideration, it is viewed that the market value of the power supplied by the State Electricity Board to the industrial consumers should be construed to be the 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. [Para 30] Conclusion
That being the position, it is held 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. [Para 31] M/s. Mangalam Cement Limited, vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Kota, IT(TP)A No.1/JPR/2024
Ground No. 2 pertain to the adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA (3) of the Act amounting to Rs. 46, 16, 39,395/-. On this issue, as per the Act, the 'market value' is the price at which transaction is undertaken between two independent persons in uncontrolled condition. In the state of Rajasthan, electricity is supplied by State Electricity Companies only, M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, i.e. M/s. JVVNL in the instant case to the consumers (both are independent persons). Thus, the price at which the electricity is supplied by M/s. JVVNL to consumer (the non-eligible cement manufacturing unit of the Appellant) is the ALP/ market value and therefore the same is considered for the purpose of determination of price of transaction undertaken between the eligible unit and the non-eligible unit of the Appellant.
M/s. JVVNL supplies electricity to cement plant of the Appellant at Rs 7.77 per unit (PB 15- 16) and this rate has been considered as ALP/ market value for supply of electricity by Captive Power Plant (CPP) to the cement plant of the Appellant. For Wind Power Plant (WPP), M/s. JVVNL gives credit of the units in electricity bill of the Appellant at the rate of Rs 7.10 per unit (PB 17-18) (after making deductions, taking charges, voltage rebate, power factor, etc to the rate of Rs 7.77 per unit) and therefore this rate (Rs 7.10 per unit) has been taken as ALP/ market value for determination of sale price of electricity for WPP.
11. In case the Appellant was not having a CPP, the Appellant would have to purchase the electricity from M/s. JVVNL that would have been supplied at the rate of Rs 7.77 per unit to the cement plant. Similarly, in case the credit of electricity generated by the WPP would have not been given by M/s. JVVNL in the electricity bill, the Appellant would had purchased the electricity from JVVNL at rate of Rs 7.10 per unit only and therefore the respective price, basis which the electricity value has been computed by the Appellant is the arm's length price as per section 92F (ii) of the Act.
Determination of price of electricity is a regulated activity and therefore the price at which power is supplied by generation company to transmission or distribution company cannot be said to be under 'uncontrolled condition' to be considered for benchmarking purpose.
The activities of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity is a regulated activity in India with the primary legislation being The Electricity Act, 2003, under terms of which Central Electricity Regulation Commission ("CERC") and State Electricity Regulation Commission ("SERC") for various states have been established.
As per Section 86 of The Electricity Act, 2003, the SERC have been assigned various functions, including the following:
• determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be, within the State • regulate electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees including the price at which electricity shall be procured from the generating companies or licensees or from other sources through agreements for purchase of power for distribution and supply within the State
Evaluating this in light of the meaning of arm's length price i.e. a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions, it is evident that the transaction of purchase of electricity by State Electricity Boards from independent power producers is a regulated activity, being subject to approval of SERC, and therefore is not a transaction undertaken in uncontrolled conditions. Thus, the transaction between power producers and state electricity board is not fit to be considered comparable to the tested transaction of sale of electricity by eligible unit to non- eligible unit. Thus, the average rate of Rs 4.57 per unit, being the price for transfer of electricity by power producers to third party customers cannot be treated as arm's length price as it is a price under controlled conditions.
Decisions in favour of the Appellant supporting the ALP determination made by the Appellant:
Following decisions are in favour of the Appellant • CIT vs. Jindal Steel & Power Limited (2023) 118 CCH 207 (SC) dated 6 December 2023 (PB 58-81): The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the price at which electricity is supplied by the State Electricity Boards to consumers is the market value of electricity for computing deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. Relevant extracts of the decision are as under:
"30. Thus on a careful consideration, we are of the view that the market value of the power supplied by the State Electricity Board to the industrial consumers should be construed to be the 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.
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." Although the same has been delivered w.r.t. deduction u/s. 80- IA of the Act, but simultaneously decided the issue of Arm's Length Price also for the purposes of section 92CA of the Act. • Chhattisgarh High Court in case of CIT, Raipur Vs. Godavari Power & Ispat Limited (2014) 42 taxmann.com 551 (Chhattisgarh) [PB 82-87] • Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Gujarat Alkalis and Chemicals Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 247 (Guj) and ACIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch, Through Commissioner vs. Pragati Glass Works Pvt. Ltd (2012) 80 CCH 0433 [PB 88-91] • Bombay HC in case of CIT (LTU) vs. Reliance Industries Limited (2020) 421 ITR 0686 (Bom) [PB 92-95] • Rajasthan HC in the case of CIT vs. Shree Cement Limited (ITA No 85/ 2014) [PB 96- 110] • Kolkata ITAT in case of DCIT vs. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd 62 CCH 95 dated 5 May 2021 [PB 111-125] • Delhi ITAT in the case of DCM Shriram Ltd vs. Addl. CIT [2022] 215 TTJ 299 (Del) dated 28 October 2021 PB [126-160] Cost of electricity generation of the Appellant is higher than the price considered by the Appellant for section 80-IA
The cost of electricity generation of the Appellant after considering a return on capital of 15.5 percent is higher than the price at which the electricity has been transferred by CPP and WPP to the cement plant and M/s. JVVNL respectively. As per section 45 of RERC Regulation, 2009, the tariff is determined by considering the cost of generation and adding thereto return on capital at 15.5% of the equity. Taking the same as base, the ALP of electricity generated by the four power plants of the company would be more than the rate at which the electricity generated by CPP and WPP has been transferred to cement plant and JVVNL respectively as computed under:
(Amount in Rs. per unit of electricity) Name of Average cost of Transfer Price Remarks power plant generation adopted by the Appellant CPP I 11.59 7.77 Refer PB 46 for CPP II 7.52 7.77 detailed WPP I 7.17 7.10 calculation WPP II 8.14 7.10 Thus, even if the cost of generation of electricity plus return on capital is considered by the Appellant, the same is higher than the price which has been taken for the purpose of transfer of electricity by CPP and WPP to the cement plant.
Case laws relied upon by the TPO/ AO are not applicable:
The TPO for the purpose of the addition has relied upon the following cases: i. CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2016) 236 Taxman 612 (Calcutta) (HC) for A.Y. 2002-03 dated: 01.06.2015 ii. M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT & 558/JPR/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 orders dated 28.10.2016 iii. Shree Cement Ltd. vs. ACIT & 181/JPR/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13
The above cases relied upon by the TPO are not applicable in the case of the Appellant and are distinguishable on facts and in law as the A.Y. concerned in case of the Appellant is A.Y. 2020-21 whereas the A.Y.s concerned in above cases were A.Y. 2002-03 (ITC), A.Y. 2008-09 (Chambal) and A.Y. 2012-13 (Shree Cement) wherein the provisions of the Act were different.
In case of ITC Ltd (supra), definition of market value was construed with respect to section 80-IA of the Act which was based upon the pre-amended provisions of section 80-IA of the Act wherein the term 'market value' was defined to mean 'the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market'. However, with effect from 1 April 2013, the definition of the term 'market value' was amended to refer to the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F of the Act. Also, section 80A of the Act overrides section 80-IA of the Act and the case law of ITC Ltd. is distinguishable as the definition of market value is different in section 80A(6) and 80-IA of the Act.
Similarly, in case of Chambal Fertilizers (supra) and Shree Cements (supra), definition of market value was construed with respect to clause (i) to explanation to section 80A (6) of the Act wherein the 'market value' was defined to mean price that goods or services would fetch if these were sold in the open market, subject to statutory or regulatory restrictions, if any. However, in this case, clause (iii) to explanation to section 80A (6) of the Act, inserted by Finance Act, 2012 (with effect from 1 April 2013) is applicable wherein the 'market value' has been defined to mean the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F of the Act which means 'price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions".
Thus, the above case laws are not applicable and are distinguishable basis the applicable provisions of the Act. As per the legal maxim 'generalibus specialia derogant', it is a settled principle of law that special things derogate from general things. If a special provision is made on a certain matter, the matter is excluded from the general provisions.
In light of above, it is submitted that the clause (iii) to explanation to section 80A of the Act for the purpose of determination of market value, being specific provision will prevail over the general provision provided in clause (i) and (ii) to explanation to section 80A of the Act.
In the light of above detailed discussion considering the submissions of the assessee and the orders of the authorities below, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer price of electricity considered by the Appellant is ALP and therefore the additions proposed by the TPO and further confirmed by the Ld. DRP not sustainable in law. Hence directed to be deleted, in the result Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Relying on above authorities and facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the First Appellate Authority, hence sustained. Grounds raised by the Revenue are not sustainable in the light of law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and followed by the coordinate benches, hence dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on21st Day of February 2025.