SARANYA TEXTILES,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the savings to the assessee by captive consumption should be based on the cost it would have incurred to purchase power from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, not the price the Board would pay for wind power. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute deductions using the higher rate.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a spinning mill, generated electricity from its wind mills for captive consumption. The Assessing Officer used a lower rate for calculating savings, while the assessee argued for a higher rate based on the cost of electricity purchased from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the correct valuation of electricity saved through captive consumption for the purpose of calculating deductions under Section 80IA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R
PER SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) in Appeal No.104/17-18 dated 05.04.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16.
2 -: Mr. K. Raghu, Chartered Accountant represented on behalf of the 2.
Assessee and Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee is a partnership firm which is running spinning mills. It was a submission that the assessee had generated electricity from its wind mills and captive consumption of the said power was done. For the purpose of quantification, the assessee had adopted a cost of Rs.5.50 paise per unit which was the rate at which the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was supplying electricity to the assessee. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer adopted a figure of Rs.2.90 paise per unit which being the purchase price of power by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from other wind mill owners. It was a submission that by captive consumption, the assessee had saved at the rate of the purchase price and for determining the actual profit generated by the assessee on account of the captive consumption of the power generated from its wind mills, the rate at which the assessee was supplied electricity by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was to be adopted which was Rs.5.50 paise per unit. It was a submission that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal without accepting the contention of the assessee. It was a submission that in respect of the transfer pricing calculations, the Co-ordinated Bench of this Tribunal had in the case of M/s.K.P.R. Mill Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in dated 24th January, 2018 held that the assessee ought to have purchase power from the Tamil
3 -: Nadu Electricity Board at Rs.6.03 paise per unit and there was no justification for the TPO to adopt the rate of Rs.3.59 per unit being the price at which the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board purchased power from the wind mill owners during the assessment year 2013-14. It was a submission that the actual cost that would have incurred by the assessee if the captive consumption was not done was to be adopted.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.
By investing in the wind mill, the assessee has saved itself from the cost of purchasing power from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Obviously, it is what the assessee saves that is to be considered and not the price at which the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would have purchase power from the assessee’s wind mill. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board could purchase power at Rs.2.90 paise per unit and then there would be add-on cost and service charge which would result in the cost of power reaching to Rs.5.50 per unit cost to the assessee. The differential would be the actual infrastructural cost incurred by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Contrary to the infrastructure of TNEB is the infrastructural cost of the assessee representing the investment in the wind mill which is a depreciable asset also. Therefore, it is not the price at 4 -: which the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would purchase the power from the assessee that is to be adopted but the price and costs that the assessee saves by making the investment and doing captive consumption. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the deductions u/s.80IA by adopting the figure of Rs.5.50 per unit as against Rs.2.90 per unit adopted by the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th November, 2019 in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 80IA
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Klsr Infratech Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 2323/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026