{"id":4684,"date":"2012-04-10T02:18:41","date_gmt":"2012-04-10T02:18:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=4684"},"modified":"2012-04-10T02:18:41","modified_gmt":"2012-04-10T02:18:41","slug":"steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-though-expl-10-to-s-431-does-not-apply-to-loan-waiver-treatment-in-books-of-reducing-amount-waived-from-asset-cost-means-that-wdv-has-to-be-re","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-though-expl-10-to-s-431-does-not-apply-to-loan-waiver-treatment-in-books-of-reducing-amount-waived-from-asset-cost-means-that-wdv-has-to-be-re\/","title":{"rendered":"Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=685\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=685&varname2=sail_waiver_loan_cost_asset.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (sail_waiver_loan_cost_asset.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nThough Expl. 10 to s. 43(1) does not apply to loan waiver, treatment in books of reducing amount waived from asset cost means that WDV has to be reduced<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee received a loan of Rs. 5,277 crores from the Steel Development Fund in earlier years. In AY 2000-01, a substantial part of the loan was waived. <em>In its books of account, the assessee reduced the cost of the assets by the amount of loan waived and claimed depreciation on the reduced figure<\/em>. However, the assessee claimed that for income-tax purposes, the waiver did not impact the WDV of the assets and that depreciation had to be allowed on the original figure. The AO, CIT (A) &#038; Tribunal (<em>included in file<\/em>) decided the issue against the assessee by <em>relying on Explanation 10 to s. 43(1)<\/em> inserted by the F (No. 2) Act 1998 w.e.f. 1.4.1999. On further appeal to the Tribunal, HELD reframing the question:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>Explanation 10 to s. 43(1) does not cover the case of waiver of the loan<\/strong>. It covers only the grant of a subsidy or reimbursement by whatever name called. Though the assessee&#8217;s case may not fall under Explanation 10, the waiver of the loan amounted to the meeting of a portion of the cost of the assets under the main provision of s. 43(1) <strong>because of the treatment given by the assessee in its books of account<\/strong> in reducing the cost\/WDV of the assets by the amount of the loans waived. The real nature of a transaction can be understood by reference to the contemporaneous act of the parties, which throws considerable light on their true intention and their understanding of the transaction. The <strong>assessee understood the receipt of the loans as having been given towards meeting a part of the cost<\/strong> of the assets and the waiver cannot have a different effect on such intention. <strong>PJ Chemicals Ltd<\/strong> 210 ITR 830 (SC), which holds, (<em>pre Explanation 10<\/em>) that a subsidy given as an incentive for industrial growth cannot be reduced from the cost of the assets under s. 43(1), does not apply to the facts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nNote: In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/f\/o.php?url=http:\/\/law.incometaxindia.gov.in\/dittaxmann\/incometaxacts\/2008itact\/%5B1998%5D231ITR0285(SC).htm\">CIT vs. Tata Iron &#038; Steel<\/a><\/strong> 231 ITR 285 (SC) it was held that even if a loan was taken for acquisition of an asset, its <em>non-payment will not affect the cost of the asset<\/em>\n<\/div>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Explanation 10 to s. 43(1) does not cover the case of waiver of the loan<\/strong>. It covers only the grant of a subsidy or reimbursement by whatever name called. Though the assessee&#8217;s case may not fall under Explanation 10, the waiver of the loan amounted to the meeting of a portion of the cost of the assets under the main provision of s. 43(1) <strong>because of the treatment given by the assessee in its books of account<\/strong> in reducing the cost\/WDV of the assets by the amount of the loans waived. The real nature of a transaction can be understood by reference to the contemporaneous act of the parties, which throws considerable light on their true intention and their understanding of the transaction. The <strong>assessee understood the receipt of the loans as having been given towards meeting a part of the cost<\/strong> of the assets and the waiver cannot have a different effect on such intention. <strong>PJ Chemicals Ltd<\/strong> 210 ITR 830 (SC), which holds, (<em>pre Explanation 10<\/em>) that a subsidy given as an incentive for industrial growth cannot be reduced from the cost of the assets under s. 43(1), does not apply to the facts.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-though-expl-10-to-s-431-does-not-apply-to-loan-waiver-treatment-in-books-of-reducing-amount-waived-from-asset-cost-means-that-wdv-has-to-be-re\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4684","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4684"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4684\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}