IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5142/MUM/2024 (AY: 2015-16) ITA No. 5143/MUM/2024 (AY: 2016-17)

(Physical hearing)

DCIT Circle- 5(2) (1), Mumbai, M/s JSW Steel Coated Products Limited, Room No. 571, 5^th Floor, vs JSW Centre, BandraKurla Complex, AayakarBhavan,M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.

Mumbai – 400020. [PAN:AACCM3988L]

Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue C.O. No. 257/Mum/2024 in ITA No. 5143/MUM/2024 (AY: 2016-17) C.O. No. 258/Mum/2024 in ITA No. 5142/MUM/2024 (AY: 2015-16)

M/s JSW Steel Coated Products Limited, DCIT Circle- 5(2) (1), Mumbai, JSW Centre, BandraKurla Complex, Vs Room No. 571, 5^th Floor, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, [PAN:AACCM3988L] Mumbai – 400020.

Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Revenue by Ms. NeenaJeph, CIT-DR &

Shri BhagirathRamawant, Sr. DR Date of Institution 02.10.2024 Date of hearing 22.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.01.2026 Order under section 254 (1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1. These two appeals by Revenue and cross-objections therein by assessee are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) both dated 05.08.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2015-16 and 2016-17. In both the appeals, the revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal, certain facts in both the years are common, the assessee in its Cross Objections have also raised common grounds, thus, with the consent of parties both the appeals and cross objections filed by assessee are clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order. For appreciation of fact, facts in AY 2016-17 is treated as lead case. The Revenue in its appeal in ITA No. 5143/M/2024 has raised following grounds of appeal:-

"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the adjustment on inter-unit transfer of power from captive power plant of Rs. 74,55,05,907/-?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in low, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited (C. A. No. 13771 of 2015), when the case of the assessee pertains to AY 2015-16 and therefore the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for years prior to the introduction of Section 80A(6) vide Finance Act.2009 and the amendments in Section 80A(6) and sec 80-LA(8) vide Finance Act, 2012 are not applicable to the facts of the assessee?

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in low, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited (C. A. No. 13771 of 2015), when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that 33. Before parting with this issue, we may mention that reliance placed by Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revenue on the definition of the expression "market value" as defined in the explanation below sub-section (6) of section 80 A of the Act is totally misplaced Inasmuch as sub-section (6) was inserted in the statute with effect from 1-4-2009 whereas in the present case we are dealing with the assessment year 2001-2002 when this provision was note even borne.", hence, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on what should be taken as Market Value for transactions covered under Section 801A is clearly applicable only to the years prior to the introduction of Section 80A(6) of the Income Tax Act, vide Finance Act, 2009?

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)is correct in not appreciating the fact and position of law that comparability of the specified domestic transaction (SDT) with uncontrolled transaction has to be established in terms of parameters contained in Rule 108(2), by which the price charged by a power generating company cannot be compared to the price of a Distributor, more so s