SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method for determining the ALP of electricity was reasonable and acceptable, as it was less than the prescribed tariff for biomass-based projects. The Tribunal also found that the sale of steam was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA and that there was an error in the calculation of losses, leading to a double deduction.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in paper manufacturing, generated electricity and steam in a captive unit and transferred it to its non-specified paper manufacturing unit. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 80IA(4)(iv) for the power and steam generated. The TPO proposed adjustments to the arm's length price (ALP) of these transactions.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the determination of the arm's length price for electricity and steam transferred between units and the allowability of CSR expenses under Section 80G.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd.104 citing42 Taxmann.com 551 · 2014 · HC
- CIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.58 citing157 Taxmann.com 207 · 2023 · SC
- M/s Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. v. ACIT56 citing13 Taxmann.com 139 · 2011 · HC
- DCW Ltd. v. ACIT39 citing37 SOT 322 · 2010 · ITAT
- Asstt. CIT v. Sial SBEC Bioenergy Ltd.6 citing4 SOT 730 · 2004 · ITAT
- No.18537 of 2009 319 ITR (st.) 8 (Mum-Trib.); (iv) SIAL SBEC Bioenergy Ltd. v. DCIT6 citing29 SOT 278 · 2009 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
per se. Accordingly, AO’s action of rejecting the claim of 80G on CSR expenditure is justified. Hence, assessee’s appeal on this ground is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 16 .12.2025
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 →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026