Mobilization advance from Ministry constitutes capital receipt, not taxable income - TDS credit allowed

ITAT Mumbai held that mobilization advance received from Ministry of Surface Transport constituted capital receipt, not taxable income. The advance was loan-like in nature, bearing 10% interest and secured by 110% bank guarantee. Since TDS was deducted on this capital receipt and assessee offered income on gross basis with advance recovered against subsequent billed revenue, the assessee was entitled to TDS credit. CIT(A)'s denial was incorrect as advance did not reduce taxable income. Following precedent in Patel Engineering, appeal allowed granting TDS credit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Credit for TDS on mobilization advance.
2. Nature of mobilization advance as capital receipt or income.
3. Application of Section 199 read with Rule 37BA(3).

Summary:

1. Credit for TDS on Mobilization Advance:
The primary issue in the appeal was the Assessing Officer (AO) not granting credit for TDS of Rs. 2,76,47,272/- deducted on the mobilization advance extended to the assessee. The AO's stance was that TDS credit can only be allowed in the years when the mobilization advance is offered for tax as income, as per Section 199 read with Rule 37BA(3). The AO observed that since no invoices were raised in the current year and the revenue was on account of unbilled debtors, the TDS credit could not be allowed.

2. Nature of Mobilization Advance as Capital Receipt or Income:
The assessee argued that the mobilization advance received from the Ministry of Surface Transport was a capital receipt in the nature of a loan, repayable with interest, and shown as "Other liabilities" in the financial statements. The assessee contended that since the mobilization advance is not income, TDS credit should be allowed. The Tribunal noted that the mobilization advance, bearing interest at 10% p.a. and secured by a bank guarantee, is indeed a capital receipt and does not constitute income to be offered for tax.

3. Application of Section 199 read with Rule 37BA(3):
The Tribunal referred to precedents, including the case of Patel Engineering Ltd. and Transonnelstory Afcons Joint Ventures, where it was held that credit for TDS should be allowed in the year of deduction itself, even if the amount is a capital receipt. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s contention that the mobilization advance reduced the income was incorrect. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee should be allowed credit for the TDS deducted from the mobilization advance.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing that the assessee should be granted credit for the TDS deducted on the mobilization advance, aligning with the decisions in similar cases. The order was pronounced in the open court on 20-11-2023.

---