2017 (3) TMI 1549 - HC - Income Tax

Accrual of income - foreign currency translation - Held that - There is a finding of fact recorded by Tribunal after noticing that Assessing Officer computed the foreign currency translation difference as income as per accounting principle and only on notional basis. The difference was adjusted in the accounts of foreign currency translation difference. The amount of this difference was notional debit/credit and did not represent any loss or income for the purpose of computing the taxable income under the Income-Tax Act. The entries on this account were made only for balancing the books. Therefore, this exercise was merely done on account of incorporating the trial balance appearing in the Iraqi branch in the Head Officer books in Indian currency. Since no actual gain accrued to the assessee, there was no question of taxing this amount. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging judgment and order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding substantial questions of law on additions, depreciation, interest disallowance, retention money, and share issue expenses.

Analysis:

1. Addition of Depreciation on Iraqi Assets:
The Tribunal found that the foreign currency translation difference was notional and did not represent any actual gain or loss for computing taxable income under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) based on this finding. As the finding was not proven incorrect or contrary to the record, the Court answered this question against the Revenue.

2. Depreciation on Temporary Erections and Durable Structures:
Questions regarding the addition of depreciation on temporary erections were considered questions of fact and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, these questions were not answered in detail.

3. Disallowance of Interest on Borrowings:
The Court referred to a previous judgment where a similar question was answered against the Revenue. Following the precedent, the Court answered this question against the Revenue as well.

4. Addition of Retention Money:
Similar to the issue of depreciation on temporary erections, the question of addition of retention money was considered a question of fact and did not require a detailed answer.

5. Disallowance of Share Issue Expenses:
The Tribunal had found that the expenses were covered under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, entitling the Assessee to the disallowance. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on this matter, answering the question against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal as it failed to establish grounds for challenging the Tribunal's judgment and order on the substantial questions of law raised in the case.