TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Loan Waiver Tax, Allows Depreciation & Avoids Double Taxation</h1> <h3>ACIT, Circle-4 (1), Kolkata Versus M/s Assambrook Ltd.</h3> ACIT, Circle-4 (1), Kolkata Versus M/s Assambrook Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Waiver of loan as taxable income.2. Depreciation on fixed assets acquired before 31.03.2010.3. Addition towards interest subsidy received.Detailed Analysis:1. Waiver of Loan as Taxable Income:The primary issue was whether the waiver of a loan amounting to Rs. 1,26,93,133/- should be treated as taxable income. The assessee company entered into a one-time settlement with Catholic Syrian Bank, resulting in the waiver of a portion of its loan. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this waiver as taxable income under Sections 28(iv) and 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, relying on the Delhi High Court decision in Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) disagreed and deleted the addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the waiver of the principal amount of the loan does not constitute income. It referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., which clarified that such waivers are not taxable under Section 28(iv) as they do not represent a benefit or perquisite arising from business. Additionally, Section 41(1) was deemed inapplicable as the waiver did not pertain to a trading liability and the assessee had not claimed any deduction for interest payments under Section 36(1)(iii).2. Depreciation on Fixed Assets Acquired Before 31.03.2010:The second issue concerned the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets acquired by the assessee. The AO disallowed depreciation on the grounds that the assets were not installed and put to use before 31.03.2010. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, which was contested by the Revenue.The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the assessee had provided invoices and evidence showing that the machinery was received and installed before 31.03.2010. The Tribunal found that the AO had misunderstood the facts, particularly the 'RC date' on the invoices, which was the date of receipt at the head office, not the installation date. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the depreciation claim.3. Addition Towards Interest Subsidy Received:The third issue was the addition of Rs. 51,66,613/- towards interest subsidy received by the assessee. The AO treated this subsidy as taxable income for the relevant assessment year. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the interest subsidy had already been accounted for and taxed on an accrual basis in earlier years. The Tribunal emphasized that taxing the subsidy again would result in double taxation. The Tribunal referenced the company's accounting policies, which followed the mercantile system, and noted that the subsidy receivable had been accounted for in previous years. Thus, the Tribunal found no basis for the AO's addition and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the waiver of loan, depreciation on fixed assets, and the treatment of interest subsidy. The judgments emphasized adherence to established accounting principles and legal precedents, ensuring that the assessee was not subjected to double taxation or arbitrary disallowances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
