
Case Details: DCM Shri Ram Industries Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2026] 184 taxmann.com 679 (Delhi-Trib.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member & S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member
-
Pradeep Dinodia, Ravi Kumar & Ms Shruti Gupta, CAs for the Appellant.
-
Ms Anima Barnwal, CIT DR for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee company was engaged in manufacturing activities and operated an eligible power unit that supplied steam to its non-eligible units. For this specified domestic transaction, the assessee adopted the ‘other method’ and valued the transfer of steam at its cost of production without any mark-up.
During the transfer pricing proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the methodology adopted by the assessee and determined the arm’s length price of steam at nil on the ground that generation of steam was incidental to power generation and its cost was subsumed therein, resulting in a transfer pricing adjustment of about Rs. 107.01 crores. Accordingly, a transfer pricing adjustment was made and incorporated in the final assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
ITAT Held
The Tribunal held that steam is a commercially viable product and cannot be treated as having nil value. Reliance was also placed on decisions in the assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years and in the case of group concerns, wherein similar adjustments had been deleted.
The issue was covered by earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case and that steam, like electricity, is a commercial and marketable product. It was held that the cost of steam cannot be taken as nil merely because it arises during the process of power generation. The Tribunal further noted that ignoring the value of steam would lead to an unrealistic determination of arm’s length price.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO by determining the arm’s length price of steam at nil was unsustainable in law. The addition was deleted, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Pr. CIT v. DCM Shriram Ltd. [2025] 170 taxmann.com 631/478 ITR 385 (Delhi) (para 15 & 25) Followed.
- Asstt. CIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi – Trib.) (para 44) Followed.
List of Cases Referred to
- DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal nos. 539 (Delhi) of 2021 and others, dated 15-3-2023]1841/Del/2020] (para 6)
- Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 22 Taxman 49/155 ITR 120 (SC) (para 10)
- DCM Shriram Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2022] 140 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi – Trib.) (para 13)
- Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) (para 14)
- CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 100/219 Taxman 379/358 ITR 295 (SC) (para 14)
- CIT v. GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. [2020-TII-50-HC-KAR TP] (para 14)
- Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/295 CTR 121/394 ITR 449/247 Taxman 361 (SC) (para 14)
- Pr. CIT v. DCM Shriram Ltd. [2025] 170 taxmann.com 631/478 ITR 385 (Delhi) (para 15)
- Rachna Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 416 (Gujarat) (para 21)
- ITO v. Jagtap Patil Promoters & Builders [2023] 147 taxmann.com 199 (Pune – Trib.) (para 21)
- Pr. CIT v. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223/288 Taxman 491 /446 ITR 1 (SC) (para 21)
- Patel Brass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA no. 60/RJT/2020, dated 10-8-2022]] (para 21)
- Pr. CIT v. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 396 (Delhi) (para 24)
- Shree Bhavani Power Projects (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 733/[2025] 475 ITR 155 (Delhi) (para 24)
- Dy. CIT v. DCM Shriram Ltd. [2025] 176 taxmann.com 51 (Delhi – Trib.) (para 25)
- CIT v. My Home Power Ltd. [2014] 46 taxmann.com 314/225 Taxman 8/365 ITR 82 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 29)
- Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [TS-531-ITAT-2022(Mum) (para 31)
- Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi [2022-TIOL-889-ITAT-MUM] (para 31)
- Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT (Assessment) [1993] 200 ITR 434 (Rajasthan) (para 32)
- Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Rajasthan) (para 32)
- Vivek Jain v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499 /337 ITR 74 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 32)
- Modipon Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 113 Taxman 44 (Delhi)/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi) (para 32)
- B.M. Parmar v. CIT [1999] 102 Taxman 552/235 ITR 679 (Punjab & Haryana) (para 32)
- Greatway (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1992] 64 Taxman 421/199 ITR 391 (Punjab & Haryana) (para 32)
- CIT v. R.J. Trivedi & Sons [1990] 53 Taxman 485/183 ITR 420 (Madhya Pradesh) (para 32)
- Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001] 115 Taxman 143/247 ITR 36 (SC) (para 32)
- CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 342/237 ITR 24 (SC) (para 32)
- Asstt. CIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi – Trib.) (para 44).
The post ALP of Steam Transfer from Eligible Power Unit to Non-eligible Units Cannot be NIL | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
