आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ (cid:13)ायपीठ, चे(cid:18)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI सु(cid:23)ी पदमावती यस, लेखा सद(cid:29) एवं (cid:23)ी मनु कु मार िग!र, (cid:13)ाियक सद(cid:29) के सम"

BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2361/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2018-19 GTP Wind Energy Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of Income

4/36, Bharathi Street, Vs. Tax, Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004. Circle-1(1), PAN: AAECG 8495L Salem.

(अपीलाथ(cid:7)/Appellant) ((cid:8)(cid:9)यथ(cid:7)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ& की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate ()थ& की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Balamirtha, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 25.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2. The assessee is a company engaged in generation of wind power using wind electric generators. The assessee sells the power generated to private parties including its sister concern. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2018-19 on 30.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs.70,65,290/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,45,35,916/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The A.O during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee is selling the power to its sister concern @ Rs. 5.25/- per unit and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act towards the same. The A.O held that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) procures electricity @ 2.75 to 3.50. The A.O held that the assessee is charging excess rate for the purpose of claiming higher deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O recomputed the deduction u/s. 80IA of the by restricting it to Rs.43,11,345/.

On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O.

3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that it is a settled position that for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, the rate at which the TNEB supplies power to customers is to be considered and not the rate at which TNEB procures the power. The Ld. AR further submitted that in the present case the rate at which TNEB supplies power to its customer is Rs. 6.35/- whereas the assessee is supplying power at a lesser rate of Rs. 5.25/- per unit. Accordingly, the Ld. AR argued that the addition made by restricting the deduction by applying the rate at which TNEB purchases the power is not correct. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 207 (SC), where it has been held that:

“28. Thus, market value of the power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units should be computed by considering the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to the consumers in the open market and not comparing it with the rate of power when sold to a supplier Le., sold by the assessee to the State Electricity Board as this was not the rate at which an industrial consumer could have purchased power in the open market. It is clear that the rate at which power was supplied to a supplier could not be the market rate of electricity purchased by a consumer in the open market. On the contrary, the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to the industrial consumers has to be taken as the market value for computing deduction under section 80-IA of the Act.”

4. We further notice in this regard that the Coordinate Bench while considering the identical issues in the case of ACIT v. Prabhu Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. h