AIT News Network

Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 74.03 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 51.22 Per Yen-Exchange Rate for export is Rs 72.45 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 49.94 Per Yen-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.128 Sensex slips further and closes at 8773 100 per cent EOUs allowed to export non-basmati rice-DGFT Notification No.59 Customs duty of 5 per cent imposed on import of Pig Iron, spiegeleisen, semi-finished products, flat products & long products Import of Crude Soyabean Oil subjected to 20 per cent customs duty- no change in import duty on refined soyabean oil-Customs Tariff Notification No.122 Time-limit for filing refund of service tax extended to 6 months-Service Tax Notification No.32 Rahul Bajaj asks Industry to prepare for the worst Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3525 and for poppy seeds 5206-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 127 CBEC clarifies the entire amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, as shown in the invoice would be available as credit irrespective of the fact that subsequent to clearance of the goods, the price is reduced by way of discount or otherwise-Central Excise Circular No.877 Mandavariya (Kishangarh), District Ajmer notified for Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.117 SC Ruling-the entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act- conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes amounted to manufacture/production-AIT-2008-413-SC SC Ruling-Whether any "gift" arose in terms of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 on the allotment of rights issue by the appellant company to its shareholders vide Board's Resolution- Whether there was any element of "gift" as defined under Section 2(xii) in the appellant issuing Bonus shares in the ratio of 1:23-AIT-2008-412-SC DEPB benefit allowed on export of cement and steel-DGFT PN 108 exports of cement in all types and forms and primary steel products eligible for export incentives under Focus Market Scheme-DGFT Notification No.58 Import of Marble Tiles-DGFT Notification No.57 Clarification on setting up Duty Free Shops approved by FIPB-Customs Circular No.19 HC Ruling-Income Tax-"reserves" arising out of the acquisition of the business of Tata Cellular Limited could never have the character of "income" in the hands of the petitioners-pre-requisite condition contained in proviso to section 147 to enable the re-assessment to be opened after period of 4 years have elapsed have not been met-AIT-2008-410-HC HC Ruling-Central Excise- valuation of the goods for the purpose of excise duty and whether excise duty was chargeable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944-while construing rule 3, who are excluded are only the institutional or industrial consumers as explained in Rule 2A and the industrial or institutional consumers in terms of the proviso to rule 2(p) for the purpose of chapter-II are the same-If the person who purchase the prepacked commodity not directly from the manufacturer or packers, they are consumers and the declaration will be of no effect-AIT-2008-408-HC Government considering imposition of import duty on steel Bad News for Consulting Engineers- whether turnkey contract can be vivisected?- The conclusion in Daelim case on the point, prima facie, being not in accordance with law, matter goes to Larger Bench-AIT-2008-405-CESTAT Larger Bench of CESTAT rules Credit is admissible on an input service relating to the business-AIT-2008-407-CESTAT credit of the service tax paid on the outdoor catering (canteen) service is admissible as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004-AIT-2008-406-CESTAT The payment for use of "services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source-The interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services-AIT-2008-404-HC Computation of Value under Section 14 for Levy of Export Duty - Customs Circular No. 18 Advance Ruling- Whether the service fee paid by the applicant to Intertek Testing Management Limited UK under Global Management Service Agreement is taxable as "Royalties & Fee for Technical Services" as per the provisions of Article 13 of DTAA between India & UK? Whether the applicant is required to deduct tax at source on the service fee paid to Intertek Testing Management Limited, UK, at the rate of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(BB) of the Income-tax Act-AIT-2008-401-AAR Larger Bench of SC Ruling-whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed -AIT-2008-403-SC SC Ruling-whether transfer of Banking Undertaking gave rise to taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the 1961 Act-it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of Income Tax Act-AIT-2008-400-SC Export duty of 8 per cent notified in place of earlier rate of Rs. 200 per tonne on export of iron ore fines-Customs Tariff Notification No.121 Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.45 SC rules Ethylene and propylene manufactured by the assessee and used in its factory in the further manufacture of the same goods would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification no.217/86-AIT-2008-398-SC New DEPB Rates on export of all products notified–DGFT PN 102 service tax paid under Section 66A is available as 'input credit' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service-Service Tax Trade Notice No.43/2008 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of cable ties from China & Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.118 Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phenol from Singapore, South Africa & European Union-Customs Tariff Notification No.114 High-tech products entitled to benefits under High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme –DGFT PN 101

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

No option to set off current year’s profit against loss brought forward under 115JB: Advance Ruling

AIT News Network

NEW DELHI. Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) vide a recent landmark ruling dated 19^th July 2006

AIT-2006-80-AAR has ruled that in a case to which Section 115JB applies, the applicant has no option to set off the current year’s profit against the loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, in its accounts, in a manner different from the manner adopted for determination of “book profit” under Section 115JB

THE FACTS: At the end of the financial year 2001-02 (A.Y. 2002-03), the applicant had business loss of Rs. 1,755.00 crores (approximately) and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,227 crores (approximately) eligible to be carried forward. During the financial year 2002-03 (A.Y. 2003-04) the applicant had a net profit to Rs. 521 crores (approximately). In terms of Sub-sec (2) of Section 115JB the net profit has to be reduced by the business loss or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is less and if the said adjustment is made there would be no book profit liable for assessment u/s 115JB for the Assessment Year 2003-04.

For the financial year 2003-04 (A.Y. 2004-05) the applicant reported a profit of Rs. 1547 crores (approximately). During the said year, the total brought forward loss of Rs. 4461 crores (approximately) shown in the profit and loss account by the applicant comprises of business loss of Rs. 1755 crores (approximately) and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 2706 crores (approximately), the profit of Rs. 521 crores (approximately) for the financial year 2002-03 (A.Y. 2003-04) having been adjusted against the unabsorbed depreciation. It is stated by the applicant that, in terms of sub-sec (2) of Section 115JB current year’s profit has to be reduced by the business loss or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less and accordingly the book profit for the financial year 2003-04 (A.Y. 2004-05) would be nil. The applicant, therefore, would not be liable to pay any advance tax for the assessment year 2004-05.

AO called upon the applicant to make an ad hoc payment of around Rs. 60 crores towards estimated advance tax liability and with a view to cooperate with the Department the applicant paid Rs. 60 crores in March 2004, without prejudice to its claim that it is not liable for payment of minimum alternate tax for the A.Y. 2004-05. The AO proceeded on the basis that the profit of Rs. 521 crores (approximately) for the financial year 2002-03 (A.Y. 2003-04) is adjusted against the business loss of Rs. 1755 crores (approximately) leaving a balance business loss of Rs. 1234 crores (approximately). The net profit of Rs. 1547 crores (approximately) for the financial year 2003-04 (A.Y. 2004-05) was reduced by the profit attributable to Export turnover amounting to Rs. 233.45 crores arriving at the balance profit of Rs. 1313.55 crores. This was further reduced by the brought forward business loss of Rs. 1234 crores (being lesser than the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3227 crores) and the taxable income was arrived at Rs. 79.55 crores for the financial year 2003-04 (A.Y. 2004-05). On the basis of the above working, the AO concluded that the business loss to be carried forward was nil for computing the “book profit” for the financial year 2004-05 (A.Y. 2005-06) and hence no deduction was called for on account of the unabsorbed depreciation. Accordingly the projected profit of Rs. 2250 crores was adopted as the book profit for the financial year 2004-05 (A.Y. 2005-06) for levy of minimum alternate tax.

QUESTIONS BEFORE AUTHORITY:

(a) Whether, in a case to which Section 115JB applies, the applicant has the option to set off the current year’s profit against the loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, in its accounts, in a manner different from the manner adopted for determination of “book profit” under Section 115JB?

(b) Whether the applicant has discretion to set off the current year’s profit, either against the loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation? In the event of such set-off being made by the applicant in one year, can it in the subsequent years adopt a different method of set-off? Can the applicant set off the current year’s profit partly against the business loss brought forward and partly against unabsorbed depreciation in such proportion at it might decide?

(c) Whether the applicant having disclosed the aggregate loss comprising loss brought forward and unabsorbed depreciation as a consolidated figure in its Profit & Loss account, can for the purpose of calculating the book profit under Section 115JB bifurcate such consolidated loss into loss brought forward and unabsorbed depreciation and avail the benefit of reduction envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 115JB in manner most beneficial to it?

(d) Whether it is open to the applicant to set off the current year’s profit against the loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation in a manner most beneficial to it subject, however, to the provisions of Sub-section (2) and whether such adjustment can be changed from year to year?

(e) Whether the applicant can change the method of setting off the current year’s profit against loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation from year to year and whether that amounts to a change in the method of accounting and requires the approval of the Assessing Authority?

(f) Which of the methods viz. the method adopted by the applicant for calculating the book profit for the Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06 or the method adopted by the Revenue for the aforesaid Assessment Years is the correct method?

RULING OF AUTHORITY:

(a) No. The applicant does not have the option to reduce the current year’s profit by the loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation (for the purpose of carry forward under section 115JB), in the accounts, in a manner different from the manner adopted for determination of “book profit” under section 115JB.

(b) No. The applicant does not have the discretion to reduce the current year’s profit either by the loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation. The lesser of the two is required to be reduced from the current year’s income. After making the reduction in one year , the applicant cannot adopt a different method in the subsequent years. The applicant cannot reduce the current year’s profit partly by the business loss brought forward and partly by unabsorbed depreciation.

(c) No. The applicant having disclosed the aggregate loss comprising of loss brought forward and unabsorbed depreciation as a consolidated figure in its Profit & Loss account , for the purpose of calculating the book profit under Section 115JB is required to bifurcate such consolidated loss into loss brought forward and unabsorbed depreciation but can not avail of the benefit of reduction envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 115JB in a manner different from the one prescribed under the ‘act’ , so as to be more beneficial to the applicant.

(d) No. It is not open to the applicant to reduce the current year’s profit by the loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation in a manner more beneficial to the applicant and such adjustment cannot be charged from year to year.

(e) No. The applicant cannot change the method of reducing the current year’s profit by the loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation from year to year . This would amount to change in the method of accounting (for the purpose of section 115JB) , which is not permissible.

(f) The method adopted by the applicant for calculating book profit for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 is not in accordance with section 115JB and is , therefore , incorrect. The method adopted by the revenue for the aforesaid assessment years is the correct method.

( Click here for full text of unreported ruling AIT-2006-80-AAR )