2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 5064
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CHENNAI BENCH)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TIRUNELVELI – Appellant
Versus
LOYAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD KOVILPATTI – Respondent
ITA 2308/CHNY/2025[2020-21]
##PAGE1##
आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ‘डी’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
(cid:21)ी मनु कुमार (cid:10)गtiर, (cid:14)या(cid:26)यक सद(cid:29)य एवं (cid:21)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:29)य के सम$
BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2308/Chny/2025
(cid:26)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2020-21
ACIT, Loyal Textile Mills Ltd,
Circle -1, vs. New No 21, Old No. 4,
Tirunelveli. Mill Street,
Kovilapatti,
Tuticorin – 628 501.
[PAN: AAACL-2632-C]
(अपीलाथ’/Appellant) ()*यथ’/Respondent)
अपीलाथ’ क+ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
)*यथ’ क+ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Bhupendran, Advocate (Virtual)
सुनवाई क+ तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 18.12.2025
घोषणा क+ तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.03.2026
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals) – 16, Chennai [in short, “ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.06.2025,
relating to the assessment years 2020-21 against the order of the Assessing
Officer passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act dated
30.09.2023.
##PAGE2##:-2-: ITA No: 2308/Chny/2025
2. Facts in brief emanating from the records are that the assessee filed its
return of income on 07.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.NIL. A reference
u/s.92CA was made on 02.02.2022 to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who,
vide order dated 10.03.2023, proposed a downward adjustment of
Rs.16,70,60,764/– in relation to the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. The
Assessing Officer (AO), in the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) dated
30.09.2023, assessed the income at Rs.22,07,36,266/-, making additions
(i)Rs.21,29,06,078/- towards difference in deduction u/s.80IA of the Act;
(ii)Rs.42,48,536/- towards disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-
deduction of tax on domestic commission (iii) Rs.10,56,694/- towards
disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on commission paid to non-
resident agents and (iv) Rs.25,24,958/- towards disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for
non-deduction of tax on professional fees. Aggrieved by the additions and
disallowances made the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the
ld.CIT(A).
3. The ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted
disallowance on both commission payments and partly deleted the
disallowance on professional fees. In so far as deduction u/s.80IA of the Act,
the ld.CIT(A), by relying on the decisions by Supreme Court reported in 157
taxmann.com 207 and by Tribunal, Hyderabad upheld the determination of ALP
of captive consumption of power at the rate at which the assessee purchased
power from the distribution company and ruled in favour of the assessee for the
A.Y.2020-21.
4. In respect of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, the First Appellate
Authority, by placing reliance on the decisions by the Madras High Court
reported in 48 taxmann.com 48, directed the AO to delete the additions on
expenses incurred towards sales commission outside India. Aggrieved, the
Revenue is in appeal before us.
##PAGE3##:-3-: ITA No: 2308/Chny/2025
5. The Revenue has challenged two issues:
a. The deletion of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of captive power
valuation for the purpose of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act.
b. The deletion of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on domestic
commission.
The learned Departmental Representative (ld.DR) reiterated the grounds taken
by the Revenue, contending that the ld.CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. [(2022) 460 ITR 162
(SC)] without appreciating that the Explanation to section 80IA(8) of the Act
inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 required determination of market value as
per the arm’s length price mechanism prescribed u/s.92F read with Rule 10B.
He also relied upon the Judgments of the following judgments:
1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court order in M/s. SAP Labs [TS-225-SC-
2023-TP]
2. ITAT