9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1003 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation in respect of assets given on lease by the appellant in earlier years - Held that - We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against Revenue by Tribunal s decision in assessee s own case in earlier years. Respectfully following the Tribunal s decision and also Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S Ltd. (2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT) we allow the claim of depreciation on earlier years transactions as well as in previous years transactions. This issue of assessee s appeal is allowed. Treating the notional gain arising on securitization of lease receivables as taxable receipt - Held that - This issue is covered against assessee and in favour of Revenue by Tribunal s decision in assessee s own case for AYs 2000-01 to 2003-04 2015 (5) TMI 1068 - ITAT MUMBAI as there is a gain to the assessee representing the difference between the amount financed and the amount shown as outstanding in the loans and advance account. The assessee deferred the said gains over a period of two years and credited ₹ 1.68 crores for A.Y. 2002-03 (Rs. 4.75 crores for A.Y. 2003-04) to the profit and loss account of the years under consideration. Since it is not the case of the assessee that the said sum represents capital receipt, learned CIT(A) concluded that the said sum should be treated as having been earned in the course of business activities carried on by the assessee and it is therefore revenue in nature. Double taxation - Held that - The assessee stated that this issue can be remitted back to the file of the AO for verification of figures and facts and this should be taxed as the assessee itself offered income. We find that the plea of the assessee is quite reasonable and we direct the AO to allow the relief in response to double taxation of the same income. Learned CIT Departmental Representative also agreed to the proposal and stated that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the AO for verification of figures and consequentially allow relief to the assessee. Addition u/s 14A - sufficiency of own funds - As the learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Limited 2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein it is held that the presumption is in favour of assessee that in case assessee s own interest free funds are more than investment which yielded exempt income than no disallowance under section 14A of the Act on account of interest can be made. In the present case, the AO has simply adopted formula and made disallowance under section 14A of the Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on assets given on lease by treating the lease transaction as a finance transaction. 2. Treatment of notional gain on securitization of lease receivables as taxable receipt. 3. Double taxation of the amount ?88.54 lakhs. 4. Disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets: The first issue concerns the disallowance of depreciation on assets given on lease by treating the lease transaction as a finance transaction. The Assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on assets leased during the previous year amounting to ?2,66,10,238 and on assets given on lease in earlier years amounting to ?11,58,10,481, totaling ?14,24,20,719. The Assessing Officer (AO) had relied on earlier years' orders to disallow the claim, stating that the assets were not genuinely owned by the Assessee but held merely as security for loans given to borrowers. The CIT(A) upheld this view, referencing similar decisions from previous years. However, the Tribunal noted that in light of the Supreme Court decision in I.C.D.S Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC), the Assessee's claim for depreciation had been allowed in earlier years. The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions and the Supreme Court ruling, allowed the claim of depreciation for both earlier and previous years' transactions. 2. Treatment of Notional Gain on Securitization of Lease Receivables: The second issue pertains to the treatment of notional gain arising from the securitization of lease receivables. The Assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in treating this notional gain as a taxable receipt. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decisions for AYs 2000-01 to 2003-04, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal concluded that the notional gain, which the Assessee accounted for as income in its books, should be treated as revenue in nature and thus taxable. 3. Double Taxation of ?88.54 Lakhs: The third issue raised by the Assessee was the double taxation of ?88.54 lakhs, which had been taxed in the assessment year under consideration and in subsequent years (2005-06 to 2009-10). The Tribunal agreed to the Assessee's request to remit the issue back to the AO for verification of figures and facts. The AO was directed to ensure that the amount is taxed only once, either in the year under consideration or in subsequent years. 4. Disallowance of Expenses Relatable to Exempt Income: The final issue involves the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee argued that the total owned funds were sufficient to cover the investment in shares that yielded exempt income, implying no need for disallowance of interest expenses. The AO had disallowed ?39.84 lakhs, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, sided with the Assessee, referencing the Bombay High Court decision in HDFC Limited 366 ITR 505, which presumes that if the Assessee's own interest-free funds exceed the investment yielding exempt income, no disallowance under section 14A is warranted. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed this additional ground in favor of the Assessee. Conclusion: In summary, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal on the issues of depreciation on leased assets and double taxation of ?88.54 lakhs, while it upheld the Revenue's stance on the treatment of notional gain from securitization of lease receivables. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee regarding the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income under section 14A.
|
