IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1543/JPR/2024(A. Y. 2020-21)

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer ...... Appellant Vs.

Wonder Cement Limited, Makrana Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh-305801 PAN No. AAACW6009L …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. C. M. Agarwal, CA, Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 11/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 21/02/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M:

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?

2. 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”.

3. 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: