|CORAM:||Amit Shukla (JM), Ashwani Taneja (AM)|
|SECTION(S):||115JA, 115JB, 41(1)|
|CATCH WORDS:||Book Profits, capital vs. revenue receipt, remission|
|COUNSEL:||Hirali Desai, Kanchan Kaushal|
|DATE:||January 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||March 17, 2017 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 41(1)/ 115JB: Entire law explained whether remission of a loan can be assessed as income u/s 41(1) and if not whether the same can be added to "book profit" for purposes of MAT tax u/s 115JB|
(i) Waiver of loan taken for acquisition of a capital asset and on capital account cannot be taxed u/s 41(1), as it is neither on revenue account nor a remission of a trading liability so as to attract tax in the year of remission.
(ii) Now we come to the core issue, whether the amount of waiver amount would at all form part of the ‘book profit’ of the company for the purpose of levy of MAT under section 115JB.
(iii) The purpose and legislative intent behind introduction of provisions of section 115J/115JA/115JB was to take care of the phenomenon of prosperous zero tax companies which had continued but were paying no income tax even though they had profits and were declaring dividends. It was therefore, sought that minimum corporate tax should be paid by these prosperous companies and accordingly, MAT was introduced. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. and another vs. DCIT (supra) as reproduced above explains the main purpose and intent behind these sections. It was never the intention of the legislature that any receipts which is not taxable per se within the income tax provision or not reckoned as part of net profit as per the profit & loss account as per Companies Act can be brought to tax as a book profit. This has been held so by Spl. Bench in case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) and by Cochin Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Nilgiri Tea Estate Ltd., reported in (2014) 65 SOT 14, wherein the Tribunal held that, an item of income which does not come within the purview of the Income Tax cannot be subjected to tax under any other provision of the Act.
(iv) Now whether the surplus arising on account of waiver of the principal amount of loan is required to be credited to the profit & loss account in terms of provisions of Part II & III of VIth Schedule of the Companies Act needs to be seen. The starting point for computation of book profit under section 115JB is the ‘net profit’ as per the profit & loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act.
(v) From the harmonious reading of the above provisions of the Companies Act, it can be gathered that firstly, the Profit & Loss account must disclose the result of the working of the company during the period covered by the account; secondly, it should disclose every material feature including credits or receipts and debits or expenses in respect of non-recurring transaction or transaction of an exceptional nature; thirdly, the profit and loss account should set out the various items relating to the income and expenditure of the company arranged under the most convenient heads and disclose all such information as set out therein; fourthly, profits or losses in respect of transactions of a kind, not usually undertaken by the company or undertaken in circumstances of an exceptional or non-recurring nature, should also be disclosed; and lastly, profit & loss account should give the fair view of the working result and accounting standards should be complied with. A clear cut distinction has been made for disclosing the true working result of the company and a disclosure of non-transaction or transaction of an exceptional nature. One has to keep in mind that the aforesaid provisions mainly requires a broad disclosure of the exceptional items or non-recurring transactions referred to therein and if for some reason or the other they have been accounted for in the profit & loss account then those provisions do not require that those items must necessarily be accounted as a part of the profit & loss account. Separate disclosure is intended to ensure that the reader of the profit & loss account gets a fair and clear picture of the result of the working of the company during the period covered by the profit & loss account. The aforesaid provision cannot be so read so as to require that every non-recurring transaction or transaction of an exceptional nature to be debited/credited to the Profit & Loss account. Accounting Standard-5 prescribes the classification and disclosure requirements of certain items in the statement of profit & loss account, whereas the Accounting Standard-9 gives the illustration of revenue recognition. AS-5 defines Profit or Loss for the period in the following manner: “All items of income and expense which are recognised in a period shall be included in the determination of the net profit or loss for the period unless an Accounting Standard requires or permits otherwise.” Thus, what is contemplated is that, all items of income and expenses which are recognised in a period alone are reckoned as net profit or loss. The recognition criteria of revenue by a company in the profit & loss account is however determined as per Accounting Standard-9. Clause 3 of AS-9 gives illustration of the items which are specifically not to be included within the definition of ‘Revenue’,
(vi) As can be seen, clause (iv) clearly excludes the cases of remission of liability, because it is nothing but gains realised from discharge of an obligation at less than carrying amount, which herein this case is gain on account of waiver of part of obligation to repay the loan. Further, Accounting Standard – 5 also states that, extra-ordinary items should be disclosed separately in the profit and loss account. The objective of AS-5 is to prescribe the classification and disclosure requirements.
(vii) A con-joint reading of the above accounting standards suggests that, there are two types of compulsions while preparing annual accounts, one are accounting compulsions and second are disclosure compulsions. The accounting compulsion comes into play since there is a double entry system of accounting, for instance, when a loan amount is waived, a debit goes to the liability account and a credit has to go to any of the liability/ reserve account, which in the present case has been taken to the Profit and Loss account. The disclosure compulsions merely require the assessee to disclose the material items in the Profit & Loss account. A mere disclosure of an extraordinary item in the profit & loss account statement does not mean that the said item represents the ‘working result’ of the company, when the accounting standard, especially AS-9 clearly provides that remission of a liability is not to be recognized as revenue, then it has to be reckoned that it cannot be treated as revenue for the purpose of either net profit or consequently book profit. The primary purpose of preparing the Profit &Loss account in Part II of the Companies Act is to find out the result of the company, during the period covered by the profit & loss account and the exceptional nature items are required to be disclosed separately so as to assess the correct impact on the profit & loss account of the company. What is required under clause (3) of Part II of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, is that, a profit & loss account should set out various items relating to the income and expenditure of the company arranged under the most convenient heads and then it provides to list out the various information which needs to be disclosed in the profit & loss account. The profit & loss account contains income and expenditure of a company in respect of the period covered by the account and therefore, there cannot be any question for including a capital surplus in that account which cannot be reckoned as income. Clause (3)(xii)(b) of Part II of schedule also shows that what is to be included in the profit & loss account is in respect of transactions of an account, not usually undertaken by the company or undertaken in circumstances of an exceptional or non-recurring nature, if material in amount. This clearly indicates that only those items can be regarded as part of the profit & loss account which is in respect of similar type of transaction and not which are exceptional in nature. Waiver of a loan certainly cannot be reckoned as transaction of a kind usually taken but it is an item of exceptional and non-recurring nature. A capital surplus on account of waiver of loan in no way can be recorded as operational profit or profit which is to be included in the profit & loss account. There can be absolutely no question for accounting in the Profit and Loss Account something which cannot be regarded as income, profit or gain.
(viii) A capital surplus thus, in respect of waiver of loan amount cannot be regarded as being amount available for distribution through the profit & loss account. This follows from the very definition of expression ‘capital reserve’ that it must be accounted directly to the credit of the capital reserve account instead of being credited to the profit & loss account so as to ensure that it is not left for being distributed through the profit & loss account.
(ix) From our above analysis and discussion of the various provisions of the Companies Act as well as Accounting Standards it can be ostensibly deduced that an item of ‘capital surplus’ can never be a part of profit & loss account albeit it is a part of a capital reserve as the waiver of a loan taken for acquisition of a capital asset is a capital receipt falling within the category of capital surplus which is non-recurring and exceptional item which to be disclosed as per the requirement of the Companies Act. Further it is quite pertinent to note that, clause (ii) of Explanation -1 of section 115JB is also an indicator of the intention of the legislature and also the scheme of the section that the incomes which are treated as exempt under the Income Tax Act are to be excluded from the profit & loss account. The said clause excludes; (ii) the amount of income to which any of the provision 0f section 10 or section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; When the said clause requires exclusion from the book profit all that amount of income which are exempt and are not in the nature of income, if any such amount is credited to the profit & loss account, then on same logic it would be inconceivable that this provision intends that ‘book profit’ should include something which is in the nature of a capital surplus on account of waiver of a loan. Even if a company has credited the amount of remission to its profit & loss account, then such a profit &loss account needs to be adjusted with the amount of remission so as to arrive at the net profit as per the profit & loss account prepared in accordance with provisions of Part II & III of VIth Schedule of the Companies Act and this is what has been envisaged in the operating lines of Explanation-1 to section 115JB, that, “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year. Net profit as per profit and loss account can never meant to include capital reserve or capital receipts. The object of enacting of section 115J, 115JA & 115JB was never to fasten any tax liability in respect of something which is not an income at all or even if it was income but is not taxable under the normal provisions of the Act. The provisions of section 115JB cannot be so interpreted so as to require accounting of what in substance is capital in nature to the credit of the profit & loss account and get indirectly taxed under book profit.
(x) From the above discussion we are of the opinion that surplus resulting in the books of the assessee company consequent upon waiver of loan amount is not required to be credited to the profit & loss account for the year in which waiver is granted and in any case it cannot be reckoned as working result of the company during the period covered by the account, so as to be treated as part of book profit of the company for that year under the Companies Act.
(xi) Before us the Ld. CIT D.R. has strongly contended that the when the assessee itself has shown the waiver of loan as part of the book profit therefore, it is precluded from claiming the deduction from the book profit, because once it has been shown and declared as part of book profit then neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee can tinker with such a result and any adjustment if at all can only be made as provided in Explanation- 1 to sub section (2) of section 115JB. First of all, from the perusal of the Profit &Loss account for the year ending 31.03.2004 it is seen that assessee had shown profit before exceptional item at Rs.571.84 crores. Thereafter, it has disclosed exceptional item of Rs.390.76 crores which is on account of waiver of dues. However, while computing the book profit and tax payable under section 115JB the assessee included the said amount for calculating the tax under MAT.
(xii) Thus, at the very initial stage itself the assessee had disclosed all the particulars and had also given a detailed note as to why the said amount will not form part of the ‘book profit’. Once that is so, then such notes qualifying the computation of book profit has to be read into it, that is, notes accompanying computation of income cannot be segregated or completely ignored. It is not the case of the assessee that an adjustment should be done while arriving at the book profit as provided in Explanation-1,albeit its claim is that correct amount of net profit as per the profit & loss account should be taken as ‘book profit’ which is the starting point of computation under section 115JB. As discussed in detail in our earlier part of the order that, a receipt which could never enter the stream of taxation either under the normal provisions of the Act or under the MAT provisions under section 115JB, then the said receipt neither constitutes profit nor revenue nor income nor any kind of gain which needs to be included in the net profit. It is a equally a trite proposition of law that an income cannot be taxed by an acquiescence or consent of the assessee but as per the mandate of the statutory provision and if assessee shows that a particular income is not taxable then he can always demonstrate and satisfy to the authorities that a particular income was not taxable in his hand and it was returned under an erroneous impression of law. There cannot be imposition of tax without the authority of law. One has to look what is envisaged under the Act to be taxed and there is no room for intendment or tax authorities can capitalize on acquiescence by assessee sans any authority by law. The court and taxing authorities have bounden duty to decide as to whether a particular category of assessee is to pay a particular tax or not. Even if we agree that Assessing Officer could not have entertained such a fresh claim but in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) as heavily relied upon by the Ld. CIT D.R., however, it does not impinge upon the powers of the appellate authorities including Ld. CIT(A) and Tribunal. This has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself in the concluding part of the said judgment. There is no such bar or statutory restrain on the appellate authorities to permit/entertain such additional claims which has been raised by the assessee before them. This proposition is strongly supported by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). It is also equally a salutary principle of tax laws that entries in the books of account or in the profit & loss account is not a determinative factor for taxing the income because income can be taxed only by the express provisions of law. We have already discussed in detail in our earlier part of the order that waiver of a loan is a capital receipt which is part of the capital reserve and cannot be reckoned as working result of the company and therefore, it does not form part of the net profit as per the profit & loss account. Thus, such a capital receipt cannot be taxed as ‘book profit’ as envisaged in terms of section 115JB.
Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. V ACIT (1993) 45 ITD 22 (Cal) (SB)
Sipani Automobiles Ltd. V DCIT (1993) 46 ITD 280 (Bang)
NCL Industries Ltd. V JCIT (2004) 88 ITD 150 (Hyd)
Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC)
Sain Processing & Weaving Mills (P) Ltd (2010) 325 ITR 565 (Del)
Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. and Another vs. DCIR and Others (247 ITR 22),
Shivalik Venture (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 173 TTJ (Mum) 238
ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. (ITA Nos.614, 615 & 635/JP/2010)
ACIT vs. L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd. and vice versa in ITA Nos.417, 418& 339/LKW/2013 dated 9 February 2016
DCIT vs. Binani Industries Ltd. in ITA No.144/Kol/2013 dated 15 February 2016
DCIT vs. M/s. Garware Polyester Ltd. (ITA No.5996/Mum/2013).
I sometimes wonder when tax is only on income; that way Income tax became relevant; that way depreciation f the company claims that is not an income so it is not taxed; if so when a waiver of loan is given is no income thoroughly, when so how tax man reads the ‘waiver of loan’ amount as revenue income?
I think Taxing statutes is just taxing the tax payer just for Nothing.
i think we need to question the very ideas of taxation; you tax on an income for which you are not in anyway a contributor as government, when so why people cannot question very root of taxation ?
you can without yourself any way like a managing partner how the governments want taxes, taxes only increase all costs for the people; why tax law may be pruned to make it most minimum, kings reduced taxes in draught or just waived, today No waiver of taxes but addition like some blessed services tax, where the government never gave any service to the tax payer but jolly well taxes as if like a highway robber.
why can’t we call the governments are one kind of high way robbery ?
i wonder why courts are sympathetic to governments which today is in no way comparable to Ashok the great kind of governments but sheer looters in the name of ‘law makers’ what is law if one has to pay a tax on which the government never really contributed?
I see these days, the govt by so called pay commissions increase by leaps and bounds the government servants salaries at the cost of tax revenue, so too these MPs and MLAs salaries hiked at the drop a hat don’t you feel like calling these governments as High way rober gangs?
Worst part is the government make law as if they are the most impartial persons, obviously people need to make laws not by so called law makers but by very people affected, then there will be some some sense – else what govt does is like a robber asking the victim pay this much else i will kill you, does it sound some law?