2017 (2) TMI 923 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal Upholds Non-Taxation of Notional Gains on Forward Contracts

ITO-3 (2) (1), Mumbai Versus Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd.

ITO-3 (2) (1), Mumbai Versus Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Taxability of notional gain on forward contracts not offered for taxation.2. Justification for treating gain on forward contract as notional and not taxable.3. Application of accounting standards and legal provisions to determine tax liability on notional gain.Analysis:1. The appeal pertains to the taxability of notional gain on forward contracts for the assessment year 2011-12. The Revenue contested the deletion of assessed speculation income of INR 45,47,858 on forward contracts not offered for tax by the assessee. The primary issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the assessed speculation income.2. The Revenue argued that the gain on forward contracts should be treated as speculative gain under section 43(5) of the IT Act and taxed in the same accounting year. The AO added the notional gain to the total income of the assessee based on the mercantile system and matching principle of accounting. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition by relying on the company's practice of debiting or crediting notional gain or loss on forward contracts to the P&L account only when the contracts are settled.3. The CIT(A) referred to the company's accounting policy regarding forward contracts and noted that the notional gain was not taken into account as per the regular practice followed by the company. The CIT(A) also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Indian Overseas Bank vs CIT (1990) 183 ITR 200, emphasizing that notional profits based on exchange rates prevailing at the last date of the contract are not taxable until actual settlement. The CIT(A) concluded that the estimated profit on forward contracts represented notional income and could not be subjected to tax until realization.4. The ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of notional gain on forward contracts. The tribunal agreed that the notional gain should not be taxed until the contracts are settled, in line with the principles of accrual under the mercantile system of accounting. The ITAT directed the AO to verify the tax treatment of the gain in subsequent years when it actually materializes. Ultimately, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, accounting principles, and judicial precedents considered in the judgment regarding the taxability of notional gain on forward contracts, providing a comprehensive overview of the case.