Tribunal rules for assessee on tax issues incl. 80IA, TDS credit, DTAA refund, transfer pricing, & more

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on various tax issues including disallowances under Section 80IA, 32(1), and 35(2AB), granting full credit for TDS/TCS, deduction of education cess, refund of excess dividend distribution tax under DTAA, and treatment of sales tax exemption benefits and carbon credit receipts as capital receipts. The Tribunal also invalidated a Transfer Pricing Order, directed a specific arm's length consideration for corporate guarantee commission, restricted disallowance under Section 14A, recognized corporate guarantee as an international transaction, allowed investment allowance under Section 32AC, and remanded the Employee Stock Option Scheme expenses issue for further review.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 80IA for Rail Systems and Power Plants.
2. Disallowance of additional depreciation under Section 32(1).
3. Disallowance of R&D expenses under Section 35(2AB).
4. Denial of full credit of TDS/TCS.
5. Deduction of education cess paid on income-tax and dividend distribution tax.
6. Refund of dividend distribution tax paid in excess under DTAA.
7. Validity of Transfer Pricing Order and addition of corporate guarantee commission.
8. Treatment of sales tax exemption benefits as capital receipts.
9. Disallowance under Section 14A.
10. Treatment of Carbon Credit receipts.
11. Corporate Guarantee as an international transaction.
12. Claim of investment allowance under Section 32AC.
13. Employee Stock Option Scheme expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 80IA for Rail Systems and Power Plants:
The Tribunal held that the benefit of tax holiday under Section 80IA is attached to an 'undertaking' and not to the 'owner'. Thus, the change in ownership due to amalgamation does not impact the eligibility for deduction. The insertion of sub-section (12A) to Section 80IA does not withdraw this benefit. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee.

2. Disallowance of additional depreciation under Section 32(1):
The Tribunal allowed the claim for additional depreciation for assets put to use for less than 180 days in the preceding year, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Godrej Industries Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2015, which allowed the balance 50% depreciation in the succeeding year, is clarificatory in nature and applies retrospectively.

3. Disallowance of R&D expenses under Section 35(2AB):
The Tribunal held that for the period prior to the amendment effective from 01.07.2016, the deduction under Section 35(2AB) should be allowed based on the expenditure recorded in the books of account, without requiring approval from DSIR for each expense. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee.

4. Denial of full credit of TDS/TCS:
The Tribunal directed the AO to grant credit for TDS/TCS based on the certificates available with the assessee, even if the entries do not appear in Form 26AS. The Tribunal emphasized that the mismatch cannot be attributed to the assessee and referred to the CBDT instruction and various judicial precedents supporting this view.

5. Deduction of education cess paid on income-tax and dividend distribution tax:
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for education cess and secondary and higher education cess, following the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. vs. JCIT. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction to the extent of actual payment made by the assessee.

6. Refund of dividend distribution tax paid in excess under DTAA:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for examining the assessee's claim of applicability of the beneficial rate of tax as per the applicable DTAA to the DDT paid under Section 115-O. If the amount quantified as DDT liability based on the tax treaty rate is lower than the actual DDT paid, the excess should be refunded to the assessee.

7. Validity of Transfer Pricing Order and addition of corporate guarantee commission:
The Tribunal held that the TPO order passed based on the reference made in the original assessment proceedings is non-est since no fresh reference was made after the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C. Consequently, the addition made based on the invalid TPO order does not hold ground. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt 0.5% as an arm's length consideration for the corporate guarantee issued by the assessee, following the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

8. Treatment of sales tax exemption benefits as capital receipts:
The Tribunal confirmed that the sales tax exemption benefits received by the assessee are capital receipts not liable to tax, following the decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier years.

9. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount offered by the assessee in its return of income, following the decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier years and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

10. Treatment of Carbon Credit receipts:
The Tribunal held that the receipts on the sale of CER certificates are capital receipts, following the decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years.

11. Corporate Guarantee as an international transaction:
The Tribunal held that the provision of corporate guarantee is an international transaction under Section 92B and directed the AO to adopt 0.5% as an arm's length consideration for the corporate guarantee issued by the assessee.

12. Claim of investment allowance under Section 32AC:
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 32AC for the cost of components of plant or machinery lying as CWIP as on 1 April 2013 but installed during the financial year 2013-14. The Tribunal interpreted the words "acquired and installed" to mean "acquired or installed" to give effect to the intention of the legislature.

13. Employee Stock Option Scheme expenses:
The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO with a direction to allow the claim if the facts of the assessee match with the facts in the case of Biocon Ltd., following the decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years.

---