Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Vs. AIRLINE ALLIED SERVICES LTD.
September, 04th 2013

ITA No. 13/2013 Page 1 of 5
$~7.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 13/2013
Date of decision: 8th August, 2013
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
AIRLINE ALLIED SERVICES LTD.
..... Respondent
Through Mr. P.K. Sahu & Mr. Prashant
Shukla, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):


This appeal by the Revenue pertains to Assessment Year 2003-
04 and arises out of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal dated 15th June, 2012.
2. Revenue in this appeal has only raised two issues. First issue
relates to deletion of addition of Rs.27,71,00,000/- made by the
Assessing Officer, by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which
have been affirmed by the tribunal. The Assessing Officer had noticed
that grant of Rs.35 crores was sanctioned by the Government in the
said year to improve air connectivity in North-Eastern Region. The
respondent-assessee had taken on lease four ATR-42-320 aircrafts for ITA No. 13/2013 Page 2 of 5
five years from Ms/ Aviande Transport Regional (ATR).

3. The respondent-assessee had authorised and had spread this 

grant over a period of five years as the lease period of the aircrafts was
sixty months. The Assessing Officer disagreed and held that once the
respondent-assessee had received the grant of Rs.35 crores from the
Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, the same could not have
been spread over five years, i.e., the lease period, and the entire amount
should be brought to tax in one year, i.e., year of receipt itself. The
assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and the grant
had accrued to the respondent-assessee in the period relevant to the
present assessment year. Thus, addition of Rs.27.71 crores was made.
4. CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal have observed that the Assessing
Officer had committed a mistake and his reasoning was erroneous.
The grant was in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and as
per the terms of the grant the respondent-assessee was to provide 4177
seats per week. This payment of Rs.35 crores was made for
operational expenses of four leased aircrafts for 60 months. It was held
that the respondent had obtained concessions under the scheme and the
progress of the scheme had to be intimated to North-Eastern Council.
As the respondent was utilising the said grant over a period of five
years, they had followed AS-12 accounting standards. CIT(Appeals)
and the tribunal have held that the said standard recognises that while ITA No. 13/2013 Page 3 of 5
computing profit and gains, the account should be prepared on
systematic and rational basis so as to match the receipt or the grant,
with the related cost. AS-12 was in accordance with Section 145 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956.
CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal have referred to the aforesaid admitted
factual matrix and the applicable and relied upon accounting standard,
which were prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. It
was held that the accounts of the respondent should give true and fair
view of the profit and loss account. Reference has been made to
judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT versus Woodward Governor
India Private Limited, (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC), CIT versus Bilahari
Investments (P) Limited, (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) and J.K. Industries
Limited & Another versus Union of India & Others, (2007) 312 CTR
(SC) 301.


5. The findings recorded by the two appellate authorities is that the
standard followed by the respondent was as per accounting standard
AS-12 prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The
said method of accounting cannot be faulted or ignored. It is further
recorded that there was no dispute that the grant given to the
respondent was based upon operations from which net
profit/income had to be arrived at after deducting the expenditure.
The grant had to be utilised over five years. They accordingly ITA No. 13/2013 Page 4 of 5
accepted that amount of Rs.7.29 crores declared by the respondent, out
of grant of Rs.35 crores should be treated as income of the year in
question. Before us, the counsel for the Revenue has not been able to
point out and state, how and why the reasoning can be faulted as the
assessee had followed AS-12. Revenue has not disputed before us that
the accounting standard, as prescribed by the institute, has been
followed. On the first question, therefore, no substantial question of
law arises.


6. The second question relates to addition of Rs.534.79 lacs, which
was made by the Assessing Officer but again deleted by the first
appellate authority and upheld by the tribunal in the impugned order.
The Assessing Officer has recorded that in the notes of the Auditor,
they had qualified the accounts stating that details of inventories of
Rs.534.79 lacs could not be ascertained. The assessee in the reply had
stated that the basic records were maintained by the Indian Airlines as
per procedure and the reconciliation of the same was done at much
later date. On the question of reconciliation, we may state that the
tribunal has sustained addition of Rs.34.31 lacs. On the question of
inventories of Rs.534.79 lacs, the CIT (Appeals) has recorded that this
amount was duly reflected in the Annual Report. He has made
reference to Schedule IV of the Annual Report where under the head
‘inventories’ full details had been given. It is pointed out that the ITA No. 13/2013 Page 5 of 5
inventories were maintained by Indian Airlines and the figures given
by them have been taken in the books. The Auditor had hedged his
report and had stated that they could not ascertain inventories of
Rs.534.79 lacs in view of the said factual position, i.e., they had taken
the figures given by Indian Airlines and had not examined the
accounts/books of Indian Airlines.


7. During the course of the first appellate proceedings, in view of
the response/contention of the appellant, a remand report from the
Assessing Officer was called for. The Assessing Officer did not
submit the remand report to contest the contention of the respondentassessee. CIT (Appeals) accordingly recorded that amount of


Rs.534.79 lacs was not in dispute. The respondent-assessee succeeded.
Before tribunal also, the Revenue could not contest the said position as
has been recorded in paragraph 10 of the impugned order passed by the
tribunal. Therefore, even on the second issue, we do not find any
substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The appeal is dismissed.


SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
AUGUST 08, 2013
VKR

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Portal Design Website Design Portal Designing Website Designing Web Design Professional Portal Design Professional Website Design Professional Web Design Portal Design India Website Design India Portal Designing India Website Designing India Web Design India Professional Portal Design India Professional Website Design India Chicago Professional Web Design New York Professional Web Design California Website Design Florida Website Design New Jersey Website Design Britain UK Website Design London Manchester Website Design

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions