NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Market Value, Not Contracted Price, Determines Deduction -  Supreme Court Upholds Assessee's Right to Higher Deduction on Market Value of Electricity

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a latest judgment that clarifies several vital aspects of the Income Tax Act, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered a significant ruling on December 6, 2023, impacting businesses nationwide. The apex court unequivocally held that the market value of electricity, and not the contracted sale rate to State Electricity Boards, is the determinant factor for claiming higher tax deductions under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In the detailed judgment, the court observed, "Market value, not contracted price, determines the quantum of deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act." This observation sets a precedent for assessing the market value of electricity in relation to tax deductions, ensuring a fairer and more accurate assessment for companies involved in power generation and distribution.

The case, revolving around an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against M/S Jindal Steel & Power Limited and associated companies, brought to the forefront several issues related to tax deductions, depreciation on assets, and the classification of carbon credits. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Tribunal and High Court's views paves the way for a more nuanced approach in computing tax liabilities for energy companies.

In addition to the primary issue of electricity valuation, the court also addressed the depreciation method on assets. The judgment upheld the assessee's right to choose the Written Down Value (WDV) method for depreciation, stating that there is no specific statutory mode required for exercising such an option. Justice Bhuyan emphasized, "The law does not mandate a specific mode of exercising the option for depreciation methods."

Furthermore, the apex court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding expenditure claims related to payments made to a consultant, affirming the Tribunal and High Court's decision. However, the issue of whether carbon credit is a capital or revenue receipt was left open for future adjudication, as it was not contested by the revenue at the High Court level.

Date of Decision: 6th December 2023

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX  VS M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED

Latest Legal News