Facts:
1) Assessee
was a wholly owned subsidiary of Canon Singapore Pvt. Ltd (hereafter ‘CSPL’).
It was engaged in purchase and resale of 'Canon' products for its holding
company ‘CSPL’ in India.
2) Assessing Officer (AO) made certain additions to
the income of assessee which reflected unutilised subsidy received by assessee from
its holding company.
3) AO
observed that the subsidies received by the assessee become its property
notwithstanding that the same had not been spent for the purposes for which
they were received.
4) On appeal, tribunal reversed the observation
taken by AO; aggrieved-revenue filed instant appeal before the High Court.
The
High Court held in favour of assessee as under:
a) Revenue's contention that the unutilised subsidy
was required to be recognised as income of the assessee in the
year of its receipt was not acceptable as this would be contrary to the
matching concept.
b) The
matching concept states that the revenue and the expenses incurred to earn the
revenues must belong to the same accounting period.
c) In
the instant case, assessee could credit the profit and loss account with the
quantum of subsidy only if the corresponding expenditure was also debited to
the profit and loss account maintained by the assessee.
d) Thus,
where an assessee follows the accrual/mercantile system of accounting, income
can be recognised only when the matching expenditure is also accounted for
irrespective of the cash outflows/inflows during the year.
e)
Therefore, it would not be correct to
recognise the subsidies received as income if it had not been spent for
specific purposes. [2016] 66 taxmann.com
88 (Delhi)
No comments:
Post a Comment