SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 644

2009(4) Supreme 150
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi — Appellant (s)
versus
M/s Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2009
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 593 of 2008)
with
Civil Appeal No. 2214/09 @ SLP (C) No. 7632/08
Civil Appeal No. 2212/09 @ SLP (C) No. 4708/08
Civil Appeal No. 2207/09 @ SLP (C) No. 18967/08
Civil Appeal No. 2213/09 @ SLP (C) No. 6911/08
Civil Appeal No. 2226/09 @ SLP (C) No. 6321/09
Civil Appeal No. 2215/09 @ SLP (C) No. 24601/08
Civil Appeal No. 2210/09 @ SLP (C) No. 2159/09
Civil Appeal No. 2235/09 @ SLP (C) No. 25893/08
Civil Appeal No. 2208/09 @ SLP (C) No. 1300/09
Civil Appeal No. 2209/09 @ SLP (C) No. 1297/09
Civil Appeal No. 2211/09 @ SLP (C) No. 850/09
Civil Appeal No. 2216/09 @ SLP (C) No. 4752/09
Civil Appeal No. 2217/09 @ SLP (C) No. 8924/08
Civil Appeal No. 2218/09 @ SLP (C) No. 9819/08
Civil Appeal No. 2219/09 @ SLP (C) No. 14194/08
Civil Appeal No. 2220/09 @ SLP (C) No. 14199/08
Civil Appeal No. 2221/09 @ SLP (C) No. 16124/08
Civil Appeal No. 2222/09 @ SLP (C) No. 2155/09
Civil Appeal No. 2223/09 @ SLP (C) No. 16086/08
Civil Appeal No. 2224/09 @ SLP (C) No. 899/09
Civil Appeal No. 2225/09 @ SLP (C) No. 5013/09
Civil Appeal No. 2227/09 @ SLP (C) No. 11516/08
Civil Appeal No.2228/09 @ SLP (C) No. 11534/08
Civil Appeal No. 2229/09 @ SLP (C) No. 11530/08
Civil Appeal No. 2230/09 @ SLP (C) No. 11517/08
Civil Appeal No. 2231/09 @ SLP (C) No. 11524/08
Civil Appeal No. 2232/09 @ SLP (C) No. 11535/08
Civil Appeal No.2233/09 @ SLP (C) No. 11518/08
Civil Appeal No. 223409 @ SLP (C) No. 11523/08
Civil Appeal No. 2237/09 @ SLP (C) No. 8718 /09 (CC No. 2868/09)
Civil Appeal No. 2236/09 @ SLP (C) No. 8717/09 (CC No. 3007/09)
Civil Appeal No. 2238/09 @ SLP (C) No. 8719 /09 (CC No. 1999/09)
Decided on : 08-04-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :Ms. Arti Gupta, Mr, Kunal Bahri, Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Mr. Arijit Prasad, Mr. H.R. Rao, Ms. Shweta Garg, Ms. Ashish Gopal Garg, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates.
In 20900/2007 :Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Sandeeo S. Karhail, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Ms. Reema Sharma, Mr. Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocates.
In 18967/2008 :Mr. S. Sukumaran, Ms. Meera Mathur and Mr. Anand Sukumar, Advocates.
In 14199/2008 :Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha and Sandeep S. Karhail, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
“Loss” suffered by the assessee on account of the exchange difference as on the date of the balance sheet is an item of expenditure under Section 37(1), IT Act.
The accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a given period of time needs to be presumed to be correct.
Amendment of Section 43A, IT Act by Finance Act, 2002 is amendatory and not clarificatory.



Headnote:(a) Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 37 – The expression “expenditure” may cover an amount which is really a “loss” even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket of the assessee. (Para 13)

        165 ITR 765; 225 ITR 802 – Relied upon.

        37 ITR 66 – Distinguished impliedly.

        (b) Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 37(1) – In interpreting the word “expenditure” one has to read Section 37(1) with Section 28, Section 29 and Section 145(1) – “Loss” suffered by the assessee on account of the exchange difference as on the date of the balance sheet is an item of expenditure under Section 37(1). (Paras 14 and 15)

        (c) Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 28 and 145(1) – Under the mercantile system of accounting, what is due is brought into credit before it is actually received – It brings into debit an expenditure for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed – Therefore, the accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a given period of time needs to be presumed to be correct. (Para 16)

        240 ITR 355 – Relied upon.

        (d) Accounting Standards – AS-II – AS-II deals with effects of Exchange Differences – AS-II stipulates effect of changes in exchange rate vis-à-vis monetary items denominated in a foreign currency to be taken into account for giving accounting treatment on the balance sheet date – Factors to be taken into account to determine if the expenditure is deductible stated. (Paras 18 and 21)

        116 ITR 1 – Relied upon.

        (e) Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 43A(1) – Increase or decrease in liability in the repayment of foreign loan should be taken into account to modify the figure of actual cost in the year in which the increase or decrease in liability arises on account of the fluctuation in the rate of exchange – Adjustments in the actual cost are to be made irrespective of the date of actual payment in foreign currency made by the assessee. (Para 30)

        193 ITR 255 – Relied upon.

        (f) Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 43A – Amendment of Section 43A by Finance Act, 2002 is amendatory and not clarificatory. (Para 34)

       Facts of the case :

       REVENUE ACCOUNT CASE:

        1. The assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.1.1998 for the assessment year 1998-99 on a total income of Rs. 1,10,28,190.00.

        2. On 16.8.1999 a notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee in which the debit to the P&L account was disallowed.

        3. This order of the AO was upheld by the CIT(A). Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the claim of the assessee for deduction of unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation as on the last date of the previous year had to be allowed.

        4. This decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Delhi High Court.

       CAPITAL ACCOUNT CASE:

        5. The main issue which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is whether the assessee was entitled to adjust the actual cost of imported assets acquired in foreign currency on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange at each balance sheet date pending actual payment of the varied liability. These civil appeals are concerned with increase in the existing liability on account of foreign exchange fluctuations on “capital account”.

       Finding of the Court :

        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

S.H. Kapadia, J.—

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. In this batch of civil appeals, the following question arises for determination:

(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the additional liability arising on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange in respect of loans taken for revenue purposes could be allowed as deduction under Section 37(1) in the year of fluctuation in the rate of exchange or whether the same could only be allowed in the year of repayment of such loans?

(ii) Whether the assessee is entitled to adjust the actual cost of imported assets acquired in foreign currency on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange at each balance sheet date, pending actual payment of the varied liability?

4. At the outset, for the sake of convenience, we may state that in this batch of civil appeals broadly we have before us two categories. In the first category, we are concerned with exchange differences arising in foreign currency transaction on revenue items. In such category, we are concerned with the assessee(s) incurring loss on revenue account. In that category, we are concerned with the provisions of Sections 28, 29, 37(1) and 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“1961 Act”). In the second category of cases, we are concerned with exchange differences arising on repayment of liabilities incurred for the purpose of acquiring fixed assets. In other words, in the second category of cases, we are concerned with the assessee(s) incurring liabilities on capital account. In such cases, we are required to consider the provisions of Section 43(1), 43A (both, before and after Amendment vide Finance Act, 2002).

Facts in M/s Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.

[Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 593/08] -

REVENUE ACCOUNT CASE:

5. The assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.1.1998 for the assessment year 1998-99 on a total income of Rs. 1,10,28,190.00. That return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 23.3.1999. On 16.8.1999 a notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee stating that in the course of assessment proceedings under Section 143 it was noticed by the Department that the assessee had debited to its Profit & Loss Account a sum of Rs. 41,06,746.00 out of which a sum of Rs. 29,49,088.00 was the unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation on the last date of the accounting year. The AO held that the liability as on the last date of the previous year under consideration was a contingent liability, it was not an ascertained liability and consequently it had to be added back to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, he added back Rs. 29,49,088.00 being the unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation. In other words, the debit to the P&L account was disallowed. This order of the AO was upheld by the CIT(A) vide decision dated 29.11.2001. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal to the Tribunal. By judgment and order dated 1.4.2005 the Tribunal relying on its earlier decision in the case of M/s Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 held that the claim of the assessee for deduction of unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation as on the last date of the previous year had to be allowed. This decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Delhi High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2007, hence, this Civil Appeal is filed by the Department.

6. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Department submitted that, in this case, the assessee(s) claims deduction under Section 37, which is a residuary provision, as there is no specific provision dealing with adjustment based on foreign exchange fluctuations on the Revenue account (akin to Section 43A, which deals with such adjustments in the Capital account). According to the learned counsel, the essence of deductibility under Section 37 is that the increase in liability due to foreign excha
































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top