TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome was booked in the account of another entity, i.e., Cadence AMS Design India Pvt. Ltd., which is not the assessee, does not give any reason, whatsoever, for making the relevant disallowance - direct the ld. Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee regarding the disallowance of the provision for doubtful debts in the case of amalgamating company in the earlier years and if he finds them to be proper, allow the deduction in the hands of the amalgamated company. This ground is, accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. Incorrect assessed income - AR prayed that directions may be given to the ld. Assessing Officer to dispose of the rectification application on due verification of the claim of the assessee in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DRP were to calculate interest on net basis whereas the ld. TPO has ignored the amounts payable while doing the computation and if the net receivables are considered then no addition would arise - Learned DR fairly concedes the request of the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the impugned assessment order and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to take plausible view in compliance with DRP directions in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kusum Health care [ 2017 (4) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and also BAPA. - ITA No. 597/Del/2021 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2021 - O.P. Kant, Member (A) And K. Narasimha Chary, Member (J) For the Appellant : Sparsh Bhargava, Adv. For the Respondents : Surender Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ₹ 10,86,422/-. Ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed a sum of ₹ 1,01,03,561/- on account of provision for leave encashment paid and on this aspect, ld. DRP directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee as to whether it has paid such amount during the year under consideration and on verification, ld. Assessing Officer allowed the claim. On the same line, following the DRP directions, ld. Assessing Officer allowed the MAT credit. Ld. Assessing Officer, however, disallowed a sum of ₹ 1,75,88,014/- on account of bad debts by observing that pursuant to DRP directions, the claim was verified and it was found that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions laid down u/s. 36(2) of the Act. Ld. Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of amalgamation, claims for bad debts subsequent to amalgamation is allowable in the hands of transferee-company. It is, therefore, clear that the bad debts relating to the amalgamating company, if are written off by the amalgamated company, the amalgamated company is entitled to claim deduction in respect of the same. 6. It is not in dispute that the ld. DRP directed the ld. Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee regarding allowance for provision for doubtful debts in the case of amalgamating company in the earlier years and to verify the allowability of the same in the hands of the assessee in terms of the conditions laid down in section 36(2). Ld. Assessing Officer, however, apart from stating that income was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 1,11,96,13,210/-; in respect of grant of MAT credit; and in respect of short grant of advance tax and TDS. Accordingly, grounds Nos. 4 to 6 are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Now, coming to ground No. 7, it relates to the claim of the assessee for deduction of education cess to the tune of ₹ 97,09,002/-. Ld. AR fairly submits that this ground was agitated neither before the Assessing Officer nor before ld. DRP at any stage of the proceedings. However, ld. AR submits that in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. vs. JCIT (2019) 107 taxmann.com 484 (Raj), Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT, 117 taxmann.com 96 and followed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Now coming to ground No. 8, it relates to the bench marking of the interest outstanding on receivables. Ld. AR submits that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. order dated 25.04.2017 in ITA No. 765/2016. Apart from that he submits that the assessee entered into Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement(BAPA) with CBDT on 03.03.2021 which covers the present assessment year and certain transactions (software development segment) and has already filed its modified return under section 92CD(1) on 28.06.2021. He submitted that the directions of ld. DRP were to calculate interest on net basis whereas the ld. TPO ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
