Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

ACIT vs. L. H. Sugar Factory Ltd (ITAT Lucknow)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 115JA/115JB: Capital receipts (such as subsidy & carbon credits), which have no income element, have to be excluded from book profits even if credited to the P&L A/c

(i) From perusal of the decisions of Rain Commodities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 41 DTR 449 and Growth Avenues, we notice that both the decisions dealt with the issue of taxability of capital gains in computing Book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. These capital gains were otherwise income u/s 2(24) of the Act and exclusion was claimed in computing Book Profit u/s 115JB on the ground that the said capital gains was exempt either u/s 47(iv) or u/s 54EC of the Act, which the Tribunal did not agree. In the present case, however, we are dealing not with capital gains but with pure capital receipt, which does not even have any ‘income’, ‘profits or, gains’ embedded therein. The impugned incentive granted to the Assessee is pure and simple capital receipt, in terms of our decision on ground no. 1 at Para 10 here-in-above, which in turn is supported by the principles laid down by the Apex Court, various high courts & Special Bench of the Tribunal. That being the case, it does not have any income or profit element embedded in it, since the incentive was granted to encourage industrial growth of industrially non developed area. No one can make profit out of the subsidy or incentive granted to it. Hence, it is not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of Padmaraje (supra) and in the light of our fact finding -as above, clearly not includible in P&L account prepared under Part II & Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act.

(ii) The genesis of Sec 115J, thereafter section 115JA and now section 115JB was to ensure that the assessee, while making profit from operations, should not enjoy tax free status due to various deductions available under the Income Tax Act. There was never any intention of the legislature to tax what is not income at all. In a recent decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd -vs- CIT (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) has held that the object of MAT provisions is to bring out the real profit of the companies. The thrust is to find out the real working results of the company. Inclusion of receipt in the computation of MAT would defeat two fundamental principles, it would levy tax on receipt which is not in the nature of income at all and secondly it would not result in arriving at real working results of the company. The real working result can be arrived at only after excluding this receipt which has been credited to P&L a/c and not otherwise.

(iii) With the above discussions, the only issue left to be considered is whether exclusion of the above capital receipt is in line with the principles as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra). In the case of Apollo Tyres (supra), the question before the Apex Court was whether an AO can, while assessing a company for income tax u/s 115J of the IT Act, question the correctness of the P&L A/c prepared in accordance with requirements of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act. From the question as framed before the Apex Court it is clear that the issue before the Hon’ble Court was with regard to power of the AO to recast audited accounts prepared in accordance with Part II and Part III of the Sch. VI to the Companies Act. Therefore, for applicability of the decision of the Apex Court the prerequisite is that the accounts are prepared in accordance with Part II arid Part III to Sch. VI of the Companies Act. If however the P&L accounts are not in accordance with Part II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, the said decision cannot be applied and in that situation it does not prohibit the needful adjustment.

(iv) Our view as above is supported by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Rain Commodities. On examination of the said order, we find that at Para 17 (last sub-para) & Para 18, after considering the decision of Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd (supra), Special Bench have held that if Profit & Loss account is not in accordance with Part II & Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, it is permissible to alter the net profit so as to make it in accordance with Part II & III of Schedule VI, which is the starting point for computation of ‘Book Profit’ in terms of section 115JB. It implies that needful adjustment to exclude the same is not only permissible, but is mandatory so as to make the Profit & Loss Account compliant, with the basic requirement of Section 115JB.

(v) Accordingly, the receipt on account of transfer of carbon credit which is held to be a capital receipt needs to be excluded from profit as per P&L account for the present year while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act.

See also Shivalik Venture (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (2015) 173 TTJ (Mumbai) 238 & DCIT vs. Binani Industries Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) & contrast with CIT vs. Binani Cement Ltd (Calcutta High Court)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Top