IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4171/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s Tata Steel Limited Vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), [Successor of Angul Energy Limited] New Delhi.

Bombay House-24, Homi Mody Street Fort, Mumbai-400001.

PAN: AACCB 7445 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. &

Sh. Akash Shukla, Adv.

Department represented by Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 10.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.12.2025

O R D E R

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the Assessment Order dated 31.07.2024 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1067198746(1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Delhi, under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pursuant to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. General Ground

1.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in assessing the total income at Rs. 12.19,11,871/- under normal provisions as against income of Rs. NIL declared by the Appellant.

2. Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 12,19,11,871/-

2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 12,19,11,871/- to the business income of the Appellant Company on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment u/s 92CA(3) on account of Interest paid by erstwhile the Appellant on the Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) provided to it by Tata Steel BSL Ltd. in view of the conditions of the Resolution Plan placed before the Committee of Creditors and approved by the National Company Law Tribunal as per the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

2.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO was not justified to propose adjustment of Rs. 12,19,11,871/-without appreciating the fact that effective cost of borrowings of Tata Steel BSL Limited from Financial Institutions was 9% and added mark-up/ spread of 1% resulting in an effective rate of interest charged @ 10% after including a mark-up/spread of 1% after considering the Unsecured risk attached to the ICD.

2.3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Ld. TΡΟ Ld. AO is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to propose adjustment of Rs. 12,19.11.871/- without appreciating the fact that even though the Appellant Company is an eligible unit for claiming deduction u/s 80-IA. it did not claim any deduction due to being in losses.

2.4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO was not justified in erroneously adding Rs. 12.19.11.871/- to the total income of the appellant Company without appreciating the fact that it is an expense for the appellant and would instead decrease the total income/ increase the total loss for the assessment year under consideration.

2.5. That the Ld. AO has erred by stating in the assessment order that penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for under-reporting of income needs to be imposed.”

3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in the following manner: “3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reference made to Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 93CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is illegal and bad in law in view of amendment to section 92BA of the Act vide Finance Act 2017.

3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the, the reference made to Ld. TPO for AY 2020-21, is illegal and bad in law, since the payment