Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on various tax issues for 2016-17 assessment

Cadence Designs Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle 4 (2) New Delhi

Cadence Designs Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle 4 (2) New Delhi - TMI Issues:
1. Disallowance of bad debts written off.
2. Incorrect assessed income, MAT credit, and advance tax.
3. Claim for deduction of education cess.
4. Transfer pricing adjustment on interest outstanding on receivables.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Bad Debts Written Off:
The appellant challenged the disallowance of bad debts written off by the Assessing Officer, contending that the amalgamated company is entitled to claim deduction for bad debts relating to the predecessor entity before amalgamation. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their claim. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim regarding the provision for doubtful debts in the case of the amalgamating company in earlier years and allow the deduction if found appropriate. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Incorrect Assessed Income, MAT Credit, and Advance Tax:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the assessment of total income, non-grant of MAT credit, and short grant of advance tax. Despite filing rectification applications, the Assessing Officer did not address the matter. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the appellant's grievances and dispose of the rectification application, allowing grounds 4 to 6 for statistical purposes.

Issue 3: Claim for Deduction of Education Cess:
The appellant claimed a deduction for education cess, citing legal precedents supporting their position. The Assessing Officer argued that the cess levied under the Income-tax Act is not deductible as it forms part of income tax itself. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not raise this issue before the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter after providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case.

Issue 4: Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Interest Outstanding on Receivables:
The appellant contested the transfer pricing adjustment on interest outstanding on receivables, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision and a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (BAPA) with the CBDT. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and instructed the Assessing Officer to consider the issue in compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel and in light of relevant legal decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed various issues raised by the appellant concerning the assessment order for the year 2016-17. The Tribunal allowed certain grounds for statistical purposes, directed the Assessing Officer to verify claims, reconsider deductions, and comply with legal precedents and agreements. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on September 20, 2021.