JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-revenue and Mr. Biren Poddar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Piyush Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent-assesse. 2. These appeals relate to different Assessment Years i.e. 2006-07 in T.A No. 20/2021; 2008-09 in T.A No. 19/2021; 2009-10 in T.A No. 21/2021 and 2010-11 in T.A No. 18/2021. However, for the sake of convenience, we are taking facts of one of the appeals i.e., T.A. No. 18 of 2021. 3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant to quash order dated 08.07.2020 passed by the learned Income Tax appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Appeal being ITA No. 137/RAN/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent being an assesse under Income Tax Act having PAN No. AAACB7747A is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing caustic soda, liquid chlorine, electricity etc. The respondent-assesse filed return of its income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 28.09.2010 declaring total income as Rs. 28,17,19,840/-. Subsequently the return of the respondent was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the respondent-assesse was selected for scrutiny. Thereafter, notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act and the assessment proceedings were undertaken by the Assessing Officer. 5. The final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act was passed on 30.12.2012 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ranchi determining total assessed income of the respondent-assesse at Rs. 54,86,18,780/- after making various additions. 6. In the instant case, the appellant is only concerned with the addition of Rs. 23,48,42,750/- which was made in the said assessment order on account of excess sale value of captive power plant shown by the respondent to get excess deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The respondent-assessee preferred an appeal against the said assessment order dated 30.12.2012 before the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals), which was registered as Appeal No. 90/Ran/Co/12-13. The learned CIT (Appeals) vide its order dated 15.06.2015 partly allowed the appeal of the respondent holding Rs. 51,28,692/- as addition to be made in the ioncome of the respondent-assessee instead of Rs. 7. The respondent-assessee preferred an appeal against the said assessment order dated 30.12.2012 before the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals), which was registered as Appeal No. 90/Ran/Co/12-13. The learned CIT (Appeals) vide its order dated 15.06.2015 partly allowed the appeal of the respondent holding Rs. 51,28,692/- as addition to be made in the ioncome of the respondent-assessee instead of Rs. 23,48,42,750/- on account of excess sale value of captive power plant shown by the respondent in order to claim excess deduction under Section 80IA of the IT Act. 8. Against the said order dated 15.06.2015 the appellant-revenue preferred appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi which was registered as I.T.A. No. 137/RAN/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 9. The respondent also filed cross-objection in the said appeal and challenged the aforesaid addition of Rs. 51,28,692/- confirmed by the order of CIT (A) on account of excess sale value of captive power plant show by the respondent. 10. The learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi vide its order dated 08.07.2020 passed in I.T.A. No. 137/RAN/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 in the appeal filed by the appellant, dismissed the said appeal of the appellant and deleted the entire addition of income of Rs. 23,48,42,750/- including the amount of Rs. 51,28,692/- confirmed in the said order of the CIT (Appeal) made in the assessment order dated 30.12.2012 on account of excess sale value shown by the respondent for its captive power in order to show extra profit from such captive power plant and in turn get excess deduction of such profit under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the total income of the respondent, hence these appeals. 11. The question of law, which is framed for consideration, has been taken note of by this Court in order dated 29.06.2022, which reads as under: I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT was justified in determining/confirming the sale value of electricity generated by the Respondent from its captive power plant, for the purpose of deduction U/s 801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the rate charged by Jharkhand State Electricity Board for transmission of electricity as against the method of cost of production plus 20% adopted in the assessment order? ii. ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT was justified in determining the revenue of the Respondent from electricity sale, for the purpose of deduction U/s 801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the rate charged by Jharkhand State Electricity Board without appreciating that the rate charged by Jharkhand State Electricity Board takes into account the loss caused by its own inefficiencies and losses in transmission and distribution? 12. The question which is to be considered by this Court at this stage has already been answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. [(2023) 157 Taxmann. com 207(SC)]. 13. Therefore, the present appeals require to be heard to that extent only. 14. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (supra). 15. Therefore, the present appeals are being disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 16. Accordingly, the instant appeals fail and are dismissed. 17. Office is directed to return the lower court records of ITA No. 137/RAN/2015, ITA No. 131/RAN/2015, ITA No. 121/RAN/2015 and ITA No. 136/RAN/2015 to the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, as called for by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.06.2022.