2017 (8) TMI 1070 - HC - Income Tax

Loan waiver for capital assets not taxable; Bombay HC cites case law, dismisses appeal.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Pune Versus Rieter India Pvt. Ltd.

The High Court of Bombay held that the waiver of a principal amount of loan used for acquiring capital assets is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. ... Waiver of a principal amount of loan - whether this constitutes a trading liability - Section 28(iv) and Section 41(1) clause (a) applicability - Held that:- Waiver of the principal amount of loan utilized for acquisition of capital assets and not for the purposes of trading activity and accordingly the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (2003 (1) TMI 71 - BOMBAY High Court) it has to be held that the waiver of the principal amount of loan granted by the DEG, Germany to the extent of ₹ 29,63,27,000/in terms of OTS Scheme is in the nature of capital receipt not chargeable to tax. From a perusal of these factual findings, we find the same to be in consonance with the principle of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. V/s. CIT, (2003 (1) TMI 71 - BOMBAY High Court] - Decided against revenue Issues:1. Whether the waiver of a principal amount of loan constitutes a trading liability under Section 28(iv) and Section 41(1) clause (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The High Court of Bombay, comprising S. C. Dharmadhikari and Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, JJ., heard arguments from both sides regarding the waiver of a principal amount of loan. The Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2003-2004 was examined. The waiver amount in question was &8377; 29,63,27,000, and the primary contention was whether this amount should be considered a trading liability. The Court reviewed the details of the loan obtained from DEG, Germany, which was utilized for financing the import of capital equipment for textile spinning machinery. The loan was used to pay off an outstanding liability towards the acquisition of fixed assets. The Revenue argued that since the assets were already acquired before the loan was utilized, the waiver should not be considered as related to the acquisition of fixed assets. However, the Court held that the loan funds were indeed utilized for acquiring capital assets, and the subsequent waiver was not related to trading activity but to the purchase of capital assets.The Court referred to a judgment in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., stating that the waiver of the principal amount of the loan utilized for capital assets is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The Court also cited the principle of law laid down in the case of Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. v. CIT, supporting the factual findings in the present case. The Revenue argued that another judgment in Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT should have been considered, but the Court found the facts of that case not identical to the present one. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the factual findings were not perverse and did not contain any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The appeal was therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.