Tax Issues in Computation of Taxable Income for Companies Adopting Ind-AS

The Challenge:

Tax Practioners would need to have knowledge of both
standards i.e. Indian Accounting Standards (Ind-AS) and Income Computation and
Disclosure Standards (ICDS) to assist the companies adopting Ind-AS in
finalising their tax returns

One
of the challenges that tax practitioners will face while finalising tax returns
for assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is in computation of the taxable income of
companies, which have adopted Ind-AS for the first time in the financial year
(FY) 2016-17.  It is normally the profits
as per the profit and loss account which is the starting point for computation
of taxable income. So far, only adjustments required to be made under the
Income-tax Act (the Act) were being made to the computation of taxable income.
However, with the advent of Ind-AS and the corresponding introduction of ICDS,
which is also applicable for the first time from AY 2017-18, a significant
number of adjustments would have to be made to the profit as per the profit and
loss account, to arrive at the taxable income. This requires a proper
understanding not only of ICDS, but also of the differences between accounts
prepared under Ind-AS and those prepared under the earlier accounting standards
(existing AS).

In this article, an attempt has
been made to analyse and list out some significant adjustments which are likely
to be made to the profit and loss account, to arrive at the taxable income of
the companies’ whose accounts are prepared adopting Ind-AS.

Indian Accounting Standards (Ind-AS)

The MCA had notified
IFRS-converged Ind-AS as Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015
vide Notification dated 16^th February 2015. The said Notification
also laid down the roadmap for the applicability of Ind-AS for certain class of
companies as under:

Roadmap for implementation of Ind-AS

All companies adopting
Ind-AS are required to present comparative information for earlier FY, as per Ind-AS. Accordingly, they will have to apply Ind-AS for preparation of
standalone as well as consolidated Balance sheet and consolidated Statement of
Profit and Loss for FY 2015-16. Once Ind-AS is applicable to the entity for one
year, it has to be mandatorily followed for all subsequent FYs.

Companies listed on SME exchange are not required to apply
Ind-AS. Companies not covered by the above roadmap shall continue to apply
existing Accounting Standards notified in Companies (Accounting Standards)
Rules, 2006 issued by the ICAI as revised vide notification dated 30^th March
2016 (“existing AS”).

Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS)

The Central Government vide Notification No. SO 892(E) dated
31^st March 2015 notified 10 ICDS. These ICDS were applicable from FY
2015-16 (AY 2016-17). Subsequent to notification of the ICDS, a number of
representations were received for postponement/cancellation of ICDS. The
implementation of ICDS was kept on hold by the CBDT in July 2016.

In September 2016, the CBDT rescinded the earlier notified
ICDS, and notified revised ICDS (I to X) applicable from FY 2016-17 (AY
2017-18).

Adjustments required to the Profit as per Statement of Profit
& Loss for Companies adopting Ind-AS

1. Revenue recognition from sale
of goods on deferred payment basis

Revenue recognition as 
per Ind-As

As per Ind-AS 18 which deals with Revenue recognition,
revenue shall be measured at the fair value of
the consideration received or receivable. Paragraph 11 of Ind-AS 18 provides as
under:

“11. In most cases, the consideration is in the form of cash or cash
equivalents and the amount of revenue is the amount of cash or cash equivalents
received or receivable. However, when the inflow of cash or cash equivalents is
deferred, the fair value of the consideration may be less than the nominal
amount of cash received or receivable. For example, an entity may provide
interest-free credit to the buyer or accept a note receivable bearing a
below-market interest rate from the buyer as consideration for the sale of
goods. When the arrangement effectively constitutes a financing transaction,
the fair value of the consideration is determined by discounting all future
receipts using an imputed rate of interest. The imputed rate of interest is the
more clearly determinable of either:

(a)    the prevailing rate
for a similar instrument of an issuer with a similar credit rating; or

(b)    a rate of
interest that discounts the nominal amount of the instrument to the current
cash sales price of the goods or services.”

In such arrangements of deferred receipt of consideration,
the fair value of the consideration is measured by discounting all future
receivables using an imputed rate of interest i.e. a rate of interest that
discounts the nominal amount of the instrument to the current cash sales price
of the goods or services.

The difference between the
fair value and the nominal amount of the consideration would be considered as
interest. Such interest would be recognised as revenue using the effective
interest rate (EIR) method as per Ind-AS 109. EIR is a method of calculating
the amortised cost of a financial asset or a financial liability and allocating the interest income or interest expense
over the relevant period.

Revenue
recognition as per ICDS

As per ICDS IV which deals with basis
of revenue recognition, the revenue from sale of goods is to be recognised when
the seller of goods has transferred to the buyer the property in the goods for
a price or all significant risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred
to the buyer and the seller retains no effective control of the goods
transferred to a degree usually associated with ownership.

As per ICDS IV, the term “Revenue” has been defined to mean
gross inflow of cash, receivables or other consideration arising in the course
of the ordinary activities of a person from the sale of goods.

Difference
between Ind-AS and ICDS

There is a significant difference in the basis of revenue
recognition as per Ind-AS 18 and ICDS IV in respect of sale of goods on
deferred payment basis. As per Ind-AS 18, the seller has to bifurcate the total
sales into fair value of consideration and interest. Fair value of
consideration would be recognised as revenue straightaway in the year of sale,
whereas interest income would have to be recognised as revenue over the
relevant credit period.

The concept of bifurcation of sale consideration in respect
of sale of goods on deferred payment basis is not present in ICDS. As per ICDS,
entire income from sale of goods will be recognised as revenue in the year of
sale, without any bifurcation of total sales consideration into fair value of
consideration and interest.

An Example

An example would explain the above
difference between the treatment under Ind-AS 18 and ICDS IV. A company which
has adopted Ind-AS has sold goods for Rs. 22 lakh on 1^st March 2017
to a customer with 10 months credit period. The same goods are sold to other
customers on cash basis at Rs. 20 lakh. Accordingly, as per Ind-AS 18, the
company would have to recognise revenue from sale of goods at Rs. 20 lakh. Rs.
2 lakh would be considered as interest, which would be recognised as revenue in
terms of Ind-AS 109.

Accordingly, a credit
period of 10 months starts from 1 March 2017, Rs. 20,000, being 1/10th of interest
of Rs. 2,00,000, would be recognised as revenue in the FY 2016-17. Balance
interest of Rs. 1,80,000 would be recognized as revenue in the FY 2017-18.
Hence, what would be recognized as revenue in the FY 2016-17 would be Rs. 20
lakh of sales and Rs. 20,000 of interest. Rs. 1,80,000 of interest would be
recognized as revenue in the FY 2017-18. However, as per ICDS IV, entire sale
consideration of Rs. 22 lakh would be recognised as revenue in FY 2016-17.

Impact of
the above differences

CBDT vide Notification No. 10/2017
dated 23 March 2017, in response to question no. 5 has clarified that “ICDS
shall apply for computation of taxable income under the head ” Profit and gains
of business or profession” or “Income from other sources” under the Income Tax Act.
This is irrespective of the accounting
standards adopted by companies i.e. either Accounting Standards or Ind-AS.”

In view of the above
clarification of the CBDT, the company would have to recognise entire sale
consideration of Rs. 22 lakh as revenue in its computation of income for AY
2017-18, even though what has been recognized as revenue in Ind-AS compliant
financials is only Rs. 20.02 lakh.

The company, while preparing computation of taxable income
would have to give effect to such differences which arise as per Ind-AS as well
as the Act/ ICDS. The company would also have to maintain details of such
income streams which gets recognised as revenue in different FYs on account of
different basis of revenue recognition as per Ind-AS and ICDS.

2.    Revenue recognition from composite/bundles transactions

Impact
Revenue Recognition as per Ind-AS

As per paragraph 13 of
Ind-AS 18, the revenue recognition criteria are usually required to be applied
separately for each transaction. However, where the transaction is a composite/
bundled transaction, the revenue recognition criteria has to be applied
separately for each identifiable component of a single transaction, in order to
reflect the substance of the transaction. As per the example given in Ind-AS
18, when the selling price of a product includes an identifiable amount for
subsequent servicing, that amount relatable to subsequent servicing is deferred
and recognised as revenue over the period during which the service would be
performed.

As per paragraph 19 of
Ind-AS 18, “revenue and expenses that relate to the same transaction or
other event are to be recognised simultaneously, as the matching concept of
revenues and expenses. As per the example given in Ind-AS 18, all expenses
including future warranties and other costs to be incurred after the shipment
of the goods, can normally be measured reliably. Such expenses which are to be
incurred in future, directly relatable to sale of goods should be recognised as
expenses in the year of sale, when the other conditions for the recognition of
revenue are satisfied. However, when the expenses to be incurred in future
cannot be measured reliably, any consideration already received for the sale of
the goods should be recognised as a liability”.

Accordingly, where sale of goods comprises of composite/
bundled transaction, the company would have to identify each individual
transaction forming part of composite/ bundled transaction. The company would
have to apply revenue recognition criteria to each transaction. Any expenses to
be incurred on such composite/ bundled transaction have to be measured reliably
and provided for as a liability. Where such expenses to be incurred cannot be
measured reliably, any consideration already received for the sale of the goods
has to be recognised as a liability.

Revenue recognition as per ICDS

As per ICDS IV, there is no provision for splitting up of the
sale consideration in respect of a composite/bundled transaction. The revenue
would be the gross inflow arising from sale of goods, and shall be recognised
when the seller of goods has transferred to the buyer, the property in the
goods for a price or all significant risks and rewards of ownership have been
transferred to the buyer and the seller retains no effective control over the
goods transferred. Therefore, where no separate charge is levied for the
servicing, the entire sales proceeds would be treated as revenue from the sale
of goods.

As per ICDS X, a present obligation arising from past events,
the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the person of
resources embodying economic benefits should be provided for as a liability.
Therefore, a provision for warranty expenses to be incurred on sales effected,
made on a scientific or actuarial basis, would be allowable as a deduction
[which is also in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rotork
Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62(SC)].

Difference between  Ind-AS and ICDS

Ind-AS, in respect of transaction involving composite/
bundled transactions requires the revenue recognition criteria to be applied
separately for each identifiable component of a single transaction. Revenue and
expenses relating to the same transaction or other event should be recognised simultaneously.
Where such expenses to be incurred in future cannot be measured reliably, any
consideration already received for the sale of the goods should be recognised
as a liability.

ICDS IV however does not give any
guiding principles on bifurcation of consideration for each identifiable
component of a single transaction, forming part of composite/ bundled
transaction. ICDS IV does not allow treatment of consideration already received
for the sale of goods as a liability, where expenses to be incurred cannot be
measured reliably.

An example

An
example on the above would explain the difference between the Ind-AS 18 and
ICDS IV. A company which has adopted Ind-AS, is in the business of
manufacturing and sale of cars. It sold a car to a customer at Rs. 5 lakh on 1^st
January 2017. The sale of car also includes free after sale service for a
period of 2 years and free warranty for 1 year. The standard price of after
sale service for 2 years, included in sale price of Rs. 5 lakh, would be Rs.
50,000.

As per Ind-AS 18, the company would have to separately
identify each component of single transaction of sale of car i.e. it has to
bifurcate composite/ bundled transaction of sale of car into separate
identifiable transaction viz. sale of car, rendering of after sale services and
providing warranty.

Accordingly, Rs. 4,50,000 (i.e. sale consideration of Rs. 5
lakh less Rs. 50,000 towards 2 years after sale services) would be recognised
as revenue in the FY 2016-17. Revenue recognition in respect of after sales services
of Rs. 50,000 has to be spread over the 2 years period. Rs. 6,250 for January
to March 2017 has to be recognized as revenue in the FY 2016-17 and balance Rs.
43,750 would be recognised as revenue in the FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19.

The company would have to estimate the expenditure it would
incur in future over the free warranty, which can be recognised as expenses,
based on principle of matching concept in the year of sale of car. If it is not
in a position to estimate expenses to be incurred as per Ind-AS 18, sale
consideration relatable to free warranty should be recognised as liability in
FY 2016-17 and should be recognised as revenue in subsequent years.

ICDS IV, however is silent on bifurcation of consideration
for each identifiable component of a single transaction, forming part of
composite/ bundled transaction. Further, ICDS does not allow treatment of
consideration already received for the sale of goods as liability, where
expenses to be incurred in future cannot be measured reliably.

Impact of the above differences

Taxation of after-sales
services

In view of the fact that ICDS
does not give any guiding principles on bifurcation of each identifiable
component of composite/bundled transaction, the company may not be able to
bifurcate the consideration of Rs. 50,000 for after sale services of 2 years from
the sales price of cars. Therefore, the gross sales price may have to be
considered as revenue in the year of sale. The question arises whether the
company can claim deduction for the estimated future expenditure that it may
incur on after sales service.

Based on the provisions of
paragraph 5 of ICDS X, if such expenditure is estimated on a scientific basis,
such future liability may be recognised as a provision under the ICDS, which is
a liability. This is on account of the fact that there is a present obligation
as a result of a past event, it is reasonably certain that an outflow of
resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the
obligation, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation.
Therefore, one can take a view that the estimated liability for after sales
service is an allowable deduction u/s. 37 read with ICDS X.

Warranty expenses

It is a common practice for car manufacturers to make
provision for warranty expenses in the books, based on past experience,
historical data of actual warranty expenses incurred or some ad-hoc estimate
and claim deduction thereof u/s. 37 of the Act.

The issue on allowability
of warranty provision has been settled by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
in the case of Rotork Controls vs. CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC) has allowed the
assessee’s claim for deduction of warranty provision as expense on the ground
that “warranty became integral part of the sale price of the product and a
reliable estimate of the expenditure towards such warranty was allowable.”
In this case, the Supreme Court held that all the conditions for recognising a
liability were fulfilled – arising out of obligating events, involving outflow
of resources and involving reliable estimation of obligation.

However, in the tax return, where the company is not in a
position to estimate expenditure to be incurred on warranty on some
scientific/reliable basis, it would not be in a position to postpone revenue
recognition from the sale consideration of car. Such treatment is permitted as
per Ind-AS, but has no specific permission in ICDS. However, where such
warranty provision is made on a scientific basis, under paragraph 5 of ICDS X,
the liability for warranty would be regarded as a provision, which is defined
as a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of
estimation, and would therefore be an allowable deduction.

The company would have to maintain details of such different
basis of revenue recognition as per Ind-AS and ICDS i.e. after sales services
in the above example, to arrive at correct taxable income.

3.    Revenue
recognition in case of rendering of services

Revenue recognition as per Ind-AS

As per Ind-AS 18, the recognition of revenue from rendering
of services is measured by reference to the stage of completion of a
transaction i.e. the percentage of completion method. Under this method,
revenue is recognised in the accounting periods in which the services are
rendered. As per paragraph 20 of Ind-AS 18, “percentage of completion method has
to be followed where the outcome of a transaction can be measured reliably.
Such reliable measurement of outcome requires fulfilment of the following
conditions:

(a) the amount of revenue can be measured reliably;

(b) it is
probable that the economic benefits associated with the transaction will flow
to the entity;

(c) the
stage of completion of the transaction at the end of the reporting period can
be measured reliably; and

(d) the
costs incurred for the transaction and the costs to complete the transaction
can be measured reliably”.

As per paragraph 26 of Ind-AS 18, “when the outcome of the
transaction involving the rendering of services cannot be estimated reliably,
revenue shall be recognised only to the extent of the expenses incurred and are
recoverable”.

As per paragraph 27 of this Ind-AS, “where execution of
the transaction has just started or has only reached preliminary stage
(referred to as early stage of a transaction), it may not be possible to
estimate outcome of the transaction involving the rendering of services. In
such situation, it is permissible for the entity to recognise revenue only to
the extent of costs incurred that are expected to be recoverable”.

Paragraph 28 states “when the outcome of a transaction
cannot be estimated reliably and it is not probable that the costs incurred
will be recovered, revenue is not recognised and the costs incurred are
recognised as an expense”.

Revenue recognition as per ICDS

As per ICDS IV dealing with
Revenue Recognition, revenue from service transactions shall be recognised by
the percentage of completion method. It is expressly provided that ICDS III on
Construction contracts shall apply to the recognition of revenue and associated
expenses, for a service transaction. In view of the express applicability of
ICDS III to a service transaction, where service transactions are at an early
stage, it would be possible for the entity to recognise revenue only to the
extent of the expenses incurred (as under Ind AS). However, ICDS IV provides
that the early stage of a contract cannot extend beyond 25% of the stage of
completion. Therefore, under ICDS IV, recognition of revenue by percentage of
completion method is compulsory beyond 25% of the stage of completion.

When services are provided by an indeterminate number of acts
over a specific period of time, revenue may be recognised on a straight line
basis over the specific period.

ICDS, however provides a
concession to certain service contracts with duration of less than 90 days. In
respect of such service contracts with duration less than 90 days, the assessee
has an option to treat revenue from such contracts to be recognised when the
rendering of services under that contract is completed or substantially
completed.

Difference between the Ind-AS
and ICDS

Ind-AS as well as ICDS requires recognition of revenue from
rendering of services as per the percentage of completion method for all
services. Under Ind-AS, percentage of completion method is to be adopted only
once reliable measurement of outcome is possible, which is possible only when
revenues and expenses can be measured reliably, and stage of percentage of
completion can also be measured reliably. There is no specific stage specified
in the Ind-AS from when the percentage of completion method becomes applicable,
but it would depend upon the conditions being satisfied in each case. However,
under ICDS IV, percentage of completion method would have to be followed once
the 25% stage of completion is reached, irrespective of whether the outcome can
be measured reliably.

Similarly, under Ind-AS, it is possible that when the outcome
of a transaction cannot be estimated reliably and it is not probable that the
costs incurred will be recovered, revenue is not recognised and the costs
incurred are recognised as an expense, resulting in a loss. However, under ICDS
IV read with ICDS III, if 25% threshold has been crossed, only the
proportionate loss based on the percentage of completion can be recognised.
ICDS is silent as to what happens in the early stages when outcome cannot be
reliably measures and the costs will not be recovered.

Further, ICDS additionally
grants an option to the assessee to recognize revenue from the contract with
project duration less than 90 days only on completion of contract or when it is
substantially completed. There is no such provision in Ind-AS 18.

An example

An example on the above would explain the difference between
Ind-AS 18 and ICDS IV. The company is engaged in the logistic business, whereby
it arranges inbound/ outbound transportation of goods. The company has huge
volume of transactions. In all cases of inbound/outbound transportation of
goods, the completion of transport of goods does not take more than 90 days period.

As on the last day of reporting period, the said company has
various pending logistic contracts, which have not reached 100% completion. The
company accordingly has to measure contract revenue from such contracts in
progress, only to the extent of percentage of logistics work complete. The said
estimation requires information of percentage of logistics work completed for
all contracts in progress, and the shipments in many of the contracts may be
mid-road/mid-sea/mid-air on the last day of the reporting period.

For Ind-AS purposes, the
company has to work out revenue from rendering of services by following
percentage of completion method, where the outcome of the contract (including
the stage of completion) can be reliably measured. Accordingly, it would have
to work out the percentage of contract completed for each contract in progress,
and the proportionate revenue and expenditure of each contract in progress, as
on the last day of the reporting period, where the outcome (including stage of
completion) can be reliably measured. However, as per ICDS, while filing the
tax return, the company can opt to offer the entire income from logistics
contracts only on completion of the entire work.

In many cases of logistics contracts, it may not be possible to
reasonably estimate the stage of completion. In that situation, under Ind AS,
the revenue from the contract would be recognised only to the extent of costs
incurred, and the profit would effectively be accounted for on completion of
the contract, as is the case under ICDS.

Impact of the above differences

The company, for commercial
reasons, may want to offer income from logistics contracts, with duration less
than 90 days, to income tax by following ICDS, only on completion of the
contract, where completion of services falls in a different FY. Such a company
would have the option to recognise revenue from contracts with duration of less
than 90 days, only on completion of the
contract. This would be irrespective of the fact that as per Ind-AS, it has recognised contract revenue by reference to the stage of
completion of the contract activity, at the reporting date. In normal
circumstances, where any contract commences as well as is completed in the same
year, revenue recognition as per Ind-AS 18 and ICDS IV would be the same.
However, where any contract with duration of less than 90 days commences and is
completed in a different FY, the company would have to maintain detailed
records, both for Ind-AS purposes as well as ICDS, where it opts for
recognising income on completion basis.

4.    Revenue recognition
in case of Construction contracts

Revenue recognition as per Ind-AS

As per Ind-AS 11
‘Construction Contracts’, the recognition of revenue and expenses is required
to be made by reference to the stage of completion of a contract i.e.
percentage of completion method. Under this method, contract revenue is matched
with the contract costs incurred in reaching the stage of completion, resulting
in the reporting of revenue, expenses and profit which can be attributed to the
proportion of work completed.

As per paragraph 32 of Ind-AS 11, when the outcome of a
construction contract cannot be estimated reliably (a) revenue shall be
recognised only to the extent of contract costs incurred that probably will be
recoverable, and (b) contract costs shall be recognised as an expense in the
period in which they are incurred.

Paragraph 33 of Ind-AS 11 explains a situation, where it
would be necessary for the entity to recognise contract revenue only to the
extent of contract costs. As per the said paragraph, “where the Construction
contract is at the early stages of a contract, it is often the case that the
outcome of the contract cannot be estimated reliably. In such a situation,
contract revenue can be recognized only to the extent of contract costs
incurred that are expected to be recoverable”. Ind-AS 11 also requires
recognition of expected loss, when it is probable that total contract costs
will exceed total contract revenue. This amount of expected loss is allowed to
be recognised as an expense immediately, irrespective of whether work has
commenced on the contract and the stage of completion of contract activity.

Revenue recognition as per ICDS

As per ICDS III dealing with Construction contracts, contract
revenue and contract costs associated with the construction contract should be
recognised as revenue and expenses respectively by reference to the stage of
completion of the contract activity, at the reporting date.

The said ICDS however gives concessional treatment to
contracts in the early stage of execution i.e. contracts which have not
completed a percentage of up to 25% of the total construction. During the early
stages of a contract, where the outcome of the contract cannot be estimated
reliably, contract revenue can be recognized only to the extent of costs incurred.

Difference between the Ind-AS
and ICDS

Ind-AS 11 as well as ICDS III, both permit recognition of
revenue only to the extent of expenses incurred, where the project is at an
early stage of execution and outcome cannot be estimated reliably. Ind-AS
however does not give any specific percentage of the construction activity to
be completed for the construction project to be categorised as ‘early stage of
execution’. Accordingly, for the construction activity where even 30% of the
total construction has been completed, revenue may be recognized only to the
extent of cost incurred, if based on the facts of the particular construction
contract it is established that the outcome cannot be estimated reliably.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has
issued ‘The Guidance Note on Accounting of Real Estate Transactions (revised
2016)’ (GN) which is applicable to entities to which Ind-AS is applicable. As
per the said GN, a reasonable level of development is not achieved if the
expenditure incurred on construction and development costs is less than 25% of
the construction and development costs. As per the GN, a reasonable level of
development is measured with reference to ‘construction and development cost’
and excludes ‘Cost of land and cost of development rights’ as well as
‘Borrowing cost’. Though the GN applies only to real estate transactions and
not to construction contracts, it may be possible to apply this level of 25%
for construction contracts.

ICDS III, however expressly provides that the early stage of
a contract shall not extend beyond 25% of the stage of completion.

Further, Ind-AS requires a company to recognize the entire
expected loss, when total contract costs is likely to exceed total contract
revenue. However, ICDS does not specifically provide for recognition of
expected loss. The expected loss can be recognised only on percentage of
completion method, i.e. proportionately.

Impact of the above differences

 The stage of profit
recognition by following percentage of completion method under Ind-AS and ICDS
may differ on account of the differing concepts of early stage of contract
where outcome cannot be reasonably estimated. While, as per accounts, profits
may not be recognized, it is possible that, under ICDS, profits have to be
recognised.

Where such company has recognised the entire loss on the
contract in the profit and loss account on the ground that total contract costs
is likely to exceed total contract revenue, it would not have the benefit of
the entire expected loss as per ICDS. In the tax return, irrespective of that
fact that there would be a loss at the end of the project, it would have to
recogniswe contract revenue (and therefore estimated total loss) by following
the percentage of completion method, at the year-end.

5.    Purchases of goods
on deferred payment terms

Cost of purchase as per Ind-AS
2

As per Ind-AS 2, the cost of inventories shall comprise all
costs of purchase, costs of conversion and other costs incurred in bringing the
inventories to their present location and condition. Further, where the inventory
is purchased on deferred payment terms, and the purchase price is higher than
the purchase price for such inventory on normal credit terms basis, the
arrangement effectively contains a financing element. In such a situation, the
difference between the actual purchase price and the purchase price of goods
with normal credit terms, is recognized as financing cost.. The said financing
cost has to be charged to the statement of profit and loss, over the period of
the financing.

Cost of purchase as per ICDS
II As per ICDS II which deals with valuation of inventories, the costs of
purchase shall consist of purchase price including duties and taxes, freight
inwards and other expenditure directly attributable to the acquisition.
However, interest and other borrowing costs shall not be included in the cost
of inventories.

Difference between the Ind-AS
and ICDS

There is a difference in the cost of purchase as per Ind-AS 2
and ICDS II. As per Ind-AS 2, where goods are purchased on deferred payment
terms, the difference between the purchase price with normal credit terms and
the amount paid with deferred payment term, is considered as interest expense
and would have to be excluded from the purchase price of goods. However, as per
ICDS II, entire purchase price paid, irrespective of outright purchase price or
purchase on deferred payment terms, is considered as cost of purchase. This
would result in difference in the valuation of stock, as well as timing
difference on account of charge of the financing cost to the Profit & Loss
Account over the finance period in accordance with Ind AS, as against treatment
as purchase as per ICDS.

An example

An example on the above would explain the difference between
the Ind-AS 2 and ICDS II. The company has purchased goods from the seller at
Rs. 75,000 on 1^st January 2017 with 12 months credit period. The
same goods could be purchased at Rs. 65,000 with normal credit period of 3
months generally allowed in the Industry. As per Ind-AS 2, difference of Rs.
10,000 would be considered as interest expense, which can be charged to profit
and loss account over the period of financing. Accordingly, interest expense of
Rs. 10,000 beyond normal credit period of up to 31^st March 2017,
would be considered as interest expense only in FY 2017-18. Where the company
has purchased such inventory out of borrowed funds, any interest paid would
have to be expensed out to the profit and loss account and would not be
considered as ‘cost of inventory’.

However, as per ICDS II, entire purchase cost of Rs. 75,000,
irrespective of deferred payment terms, would be treated as cost of purchases,
and would be included in the cost of inventory, if the said goods are lying in
stock as on 31^st March 2017.

Impact of the above differences

Accordingly, there would be
difference between the cost of purchases as per Ind-AS and ICDS. The company
would have to maintain records of such interest expense arising because of
deferred payment basis and which has been charged to profit and loss account in
subsequent FY. Such interest which has been charged to the profit and loss
account both in current FY as well as in subsequent FY would, under ICDS, have
to be treated as part of purchase cost/ inventory valuation in the current FY.

The company would also have to maintain details of all such
differences which arise because of difference in Ind-AS and ICDS.

6.    Initial cost of
fixed assets purchased on deferred settlement terms

Initial cost of fixed assets as per Ind-AS 16

As per Ind-AS 16, an item of Property, Plant and Equipment
(PPE) that qualifies for recognition as an asset shall be measured at its cost.
The cost of such asset is the cash price
equivalent at the recognition date. If payment is deferred beyond normal
credit terms, difference between the cash price equivalent and the total
payment towards purchase of assets, is recognized as interest over the period
of credit, unless such interest is capitalised in accordance with Ind-AS 23
which deals with borrowing cost. Ind-AS 23 lays down conditions as to when
borrowing cost can be added to the cost of
assets purchased.

Actual cost as per ICDS V

As per ICDS V dealing with tangible fixed assets, the actual
cost of an acquired tangible fixed asset shall comprise of its purchase price,
import duties and other taxes, excluding those subsequently recoverable, and
any directly attributable expenditure on making the asset ready for its
intended use.

Difference between the Ind-AS
and ICDS

There is a material difference in the cost of fixed assets as
per Ind-AS 16 and ICDS V. As per Ind-AS 16, cash price equivalent at the
recognition date would be regarded as initial cost of fixed assets. However, as
per ICDS V, entire purchase price of the fixed assets, irrespective of deferred
payment terms, would be considered as actual cost of fixed assets. Accordingly,
any financing cost arising because of bifurcation of payment towards purchase
of assets into cash price equivalent and the financing element, would have to
be added to written down value of the respective ‘block of assets’ in the year
of purchase, irrespective of its treatment as per Ind-AS.

An example

An example on the above would explain the difference between
the Ind-AS 16 and ICDS V. The company has purchased a machine for Rs. 5,00,000
on 31^st March 2017 with 12 months credit period. The said machine
had cash price of Rs. 4,50,000. As per Ind-AS 16, difference of Rs. 50,000
would be considered as finance cost over the period of financing. Accordingly,
Rs. 50,000 would be considered as finance cost in FY 2017-18, as the same
pertains to period after 31^st March 2017.

Impact of the above differences

Accordingly, there would be difference between the cost of
PPE as per Ind-AS and ICDS. The company would have to maintain records of such
finance cost arising because of difference between the cash price equivalent
and the total payment towards purchase of PPE. Such cost, which would be
charged to the statement of profit and loss in subsequent FYs, would have to be
added to the cost of the respective ‘block of assets’, in order to comply with
ICDS provisions. The company would be entitled to depreciation on such cost in
the current year itself and would increase its block of assets by the said
amount, even though the same would be charged to the statement of profit and
loss in the next FY.

7.    Interest free loan
to subsidiary or to employee (for long term)

Recognition of
interest free loan given as  per Ind-As 109

Ind-AS 109 requires that financial assets and liabilities
should be recognised on initial recognition at fair value, as adjusted for the
transaction cost. In accordance with Ind-AS 109 ‘Financial Instruments’, in
case the loan is for a period exceeding one year (i.e. long term) the lender
would recognise the loan at its fair value as per the EIR method. Accordingly, interest
free loan exceeding one year given by the parent company to its subsidiary or
by an employer to its employee would be recorded at fair value, which would be
less than the amount of loan given. In spite of the fact that the said loan was
interest free, notional interest on fair value of the loan would be credited as
interest income in the profit and loss.

Recognition of interest free loan given to subsidiary/employee
as per ICDS

Under ICDS, there is no concept of recognition of financial
assets at fair value. There is also no concept of recognition of notional
interest as income in the statement of profit and loss. For income tax
purposes, the said interest free loan given would be recorded at the nominal
amount of the loan. No interest would be regarded as accruing on the loan,
since it is contractually an interest-free loan.

Difference between the Ind-AS
and ICDS

As per Ind-AS, every year the imputed interest income will be
provided in the statement of profit and loss for the year, with the corresponding
debit to the value of loan reflected as an asset. Over the years, loan amount
will finally be reinstated to what would be the repayable amount (the amount
that was received originally). Simultaneously, an appropriate amount will be
transferred from equity to the statement of profit and loss account, which will
have the effect of negating the interest income in the statement of profit and
loss. .

Impact of the above differences

Such notional interest which has been credited to the
statement of profit and loss of the parent company/employer would not be
“income” as per the Act. Accordingly, the same would have to be reduced from
the total income of the parent company/employer to arrive at taxable income.

8.    Borrowing cost

Borrowing cost as per Ind-AS
23

As per Ind-AS 23 dealing with borrowing costs, the borrowing
costs includes interest expense calculated using the effective interest method,
finance charges in respect of finance leases recognised in accordance with
leases and exchange differences arising from foreign currency borrowings to the
extent that they are regarded as an adjustment to interest costs.

Ind AS 23 defines a qualifying asset as an asset that
necessarily takes a substantial period of time to get ready for its intended
use or sale. As per paragraph 7 of Ind-AS 23, the following types of assets may
be qualifying assets: (a) inventories, (b) manufacturing plants, (c) power
generation facilities, (d) intangible assets, (e) investment properties and (f)
bearer plants. Financial assets and inventories that are manufactured or
otherwise produced, over a short period of time are not qualifying assets.
Further, assets that are ready for their intended use or sale when acquired are
not qualifying assets.

As per paragraph 12 of Ind-AS 23, “the amount of borrowing
costs eligible for capitalization is the actual borrowing costs incurred during
the period less any investment income on the
temporary investment of those borrowings.”

Further, as per paragraph 14 of Ind-AS 23, “where the
entity has borrowed funds generally (and not for specific purpose of acquiring
qualifying assets) but used such borrowed funds for acquisition of a qualifying
asset, borrowing costs eligible for capitalisation are to be determined, by
applying a capitalisation rate to the expenditures on that asset”.

As per paragraph 22 of Ind-AS 23, “an entity shall cease
capitalising borrowing costs, when substantially all the activities necessary
to prepare the qualifying asset for its intended use or sale are complete”.

Borrowing costs as per ICDS IX read with section 36(1)(iii)

Section 36(1)(iii) provides for deduction of interest in
respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of business. The proviso to
section 36(1)(iii) requires that interest in respect of capital borrowed for
acquisition of an asset from the date of borrowing till the date the asset is
put to use, is not allowable as a deduction.

As per ICDS IX, borrowing costs are interest and other costs
incurred by a person in connection with the borrowing of funds and include (i)
commitment charges on borrowings, (ii) amortised amount of discounts or
premiums relating to borrowings, (iii) amortised  amount 
of  ancillary  costs 
incurred  in  connection 
with  the arrangement of
borrowings and (iv) finance charges in respect of assets acquired under finance
leases or under other similar arrangements.

As per ICDS IX, the term
“Qualifying asset” for the purposes of capitalisation of specific borrowing
costs means: (i) land, building, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible
assets, (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licenses, franchises
or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible
assets and (iii) inventories that require a period of twelve months or more to
bring them to a saleable condition.

As per ICDS IX, general borrowing costs are capitalized to
the qualifying assets based on a particular formula. For the purpose of
capitalisation of general borrowing costs, the term “Qualifying Asset” means
any asset which necessarily requires a period of 12 months or more for its
acquisition, construction or production. Further, an entity shall cease
capitalizing borrowing costs, when such asset is first put to use or when
substantially all the activities necessary to prepare such inventory for its
intended sale are complete.

Difference between the Ind-AS
and ICDS

A major difference between Ind AS 23 and ICDS IX is in
respect of capitalisation of costs of borrowings taken specifically for
acquisition of an asset. Under ICDS IX read with the proviso to section
36(1)(iii), cost of borrowings taken for acquisition of all fixed assets, up to
the date of put to use, is to be capitalised. However, under Ind AS 23, qualifying
assets, where such borrowing costs are to be capitalised, are only those assets
which necessarily take a substantial period of time to get ready for their
intended use or sale, and not all fixed assets. This requires judgement to be
applied and can be subjective – the period for qualifying assets under Ind-AS
23 can be even 6 months or even 24 months.

There is also a material difference in the concept of
borrowing costs as per Ind-AS 23 and ICDS IX.As per Ind-AS 23, borrowing cost
is calculated using the effective interest method, whereas as per ICDS, it is
calculated at actual interest and other costs incurred.

Exchange differences arising in respect of foreign currency
borrowing, forms part of borrowing costs as per Ind-AS, whereas the same does
not form part of borrowing cost as per ICDS.

As per Ind-AS, any income from temporary investment of
borrowed funds is to be reduced from the borrowing cost required to be
capitalised, whereas such reduction is not permissible in ICDS.

There is also a material difference in the formula for
capitalising general borrowing cost, in that under ICDS, the cost of general
borrowing is apportioned in the ratio of the qualifying assets to the total
assets based on the opening and closing values of such assets, without
considering the amount of or movement in borrowings during the year Under Ind
AS, the weighted average cost of general borrowing is applied to the value of
qualifying assets for the relevant period.

As per Ind-AS 23, inventories that do not necessarily take a
substantial period of time for getting ready for sale will not qualify as
qualifying assets. The term “substantial period of time” is not defined, and
hence could be even less than 12 months. However, as per ICDS, the period of
time is defined as 12 months, and hence inventories that require less than 12
months to bring them to a saleable condition are not qualifying assets.

As per Ind-AS, an entity shall cease capitalizing borrowing
costs to assets, when substantially all the activities necessary to prepare
such asset for its intended use or sale are complete. However, as per ICDS, the
capitalization would cease where fixed assets are put to use, or when
substantially all the activities necessary to prepare such inventory for its
intended sale are complete.

Impact of the above differences.

There are various differences between Ind-AS and ICDS on
definition of borrowing cost and qualifying assets, treatment of income arising
from temporary investment of borrowed fund, formula for capitalising borrowing
cost in case of general borrowings and finally, on the time of cessation of
capitalisation. These would result in different capitalisation of borrowing
costs as per accounts, and in computation of income as per ICDS. Accordingly,
the interest debited to Statement of Profit and Loss and that allowable as a
deduction would also differ. These differences would also impact the
depreciation.

9.    Financial assets

Financial assets as per Ind-AS
109

As per Ind-AS 109, all financial asset are required to be
subsequently measured at fair value through profit & loss (FVTPL), fair
value through other comprehensive income (FVOCI) or at amortised cost (normally
for debt instruments), at each balance sheet date, depending upon their initial
classification by the entity.

Investments

Investments are not covered by ICDS, but any gain or loss is
to be considered as capital gains on transfer of such investments. Therefore,
any item in statement of profit or loss or other comprehensive income, on
account of remeasurement of financial assets, is to be ignored for computation
of taxable income.

Any security on acquisition as stock in trade shall be
recognised at actual cost. At the end of any previous year, securities held as
stock-in-trade shall be valued at actual cost initially recognised or net
realizable value at the end of that previous year, whichever is lower.
Securities not listed on a recognized stock exchange or listed but not quoted
on a recognised stock exchange with regularity from time to time, shall be
valued at actual cost initially recognized.

For the purpose of applying the above principles, the
comparison of actual cost initially recognised and net realisable value shall
be done category-wise and not for each individual security. For this purpose,
securities shall be classified into the following categories, namely:-

(a) shares,

(b) debt securities,

(c) convertible securities, and

(d) any other securities, not covered above.

The value of securities held as stock-in-trade of a business
as on the beginning of the previous year shall be:

(a) the cost
of securities available, if any, on the day of the commencement of the business
when the business has commenced during the previous year; and

(b) the
value of the securities of the business as on the close of the immediately
preceding previous year, in any other case.

Difference between the Ind-AS
and ICDS

There is material difference in the valuation of securities
held as stock in trade as per Ind-AS 109 and ICDS IX. As per Ind-AS, the
valuation of securities are required to be made at fair value. However, as per
ICDS, the listed securities, held for trading shall be valued at actual cost
initially recognised or net realisable value at the end of that previous year,
whichever is lower, Further, ICDS requires valuation on securities to be made
category-wise., and not on individual investment basis as per Ind-AS.

Impact of the above differences

In view of the above difference, there would be differences
in gain or loss recognised by the company in its profit and loss account vis-à-vis
as per tax return. The company would have to maintain detailed records of
transactions of securities traded as well as held as inventory, by applying
principles laid down in Ind-AS as well as ICDS.

10.  Actual cost of assets
– Cost of Dismantling and restoration

Cost of an asset as per Ind-AS
16

As per Ind-AS 16, an item of property, plant and equipment
that qualifies for recognition as an asset shall be measured at its cost. Cost
for this purpose also includes “the initial estimate of the costs of
dismantling and removing the item and restoring the site on which it is
located, the obligation for which an entity incurs.”

Actual cost of asset as per ICDS IV

As per ICDS IV, the actual cost of an acquired tangible fixed
asset shall comprise its purchase price, import duties and other taxes,
excluding those subsequently recoverable, and any directly attributable
expenditure on making the asset ready for its intended use. Any initial
estimate of the costs of dismantling, removing the item and restoring the site
on which it is located, is not treated as actual cost.

Difference between the Ind-AS
and ICDS

Actual cost of assets as per Ind-AS includes cost of the
initial estimate of the costs of dismantling, removing the item and restoring
the site on which it is located. However, the same has to be ignored as per the
ICDS.

Impact of the above differences

Accordingly, any increase in actual cost of the assets
because of cost of dismantling being included as per Ind-AS has to be ignored
while computing actual cost of assets as per ICDS V.

Impact on Book Profits under Minimum Alternative Tax

In the above article, the impact on book profits under
section 115JB has not been considered, since the starting point for that
purpose is the profit as per statement of profit and loss account, and the
further adjustments required to be made are listed out in sub-sections (2A),
(2B) and (2C) of section 115JB.

Conclusion

These are only some of the significant differences which one
may come across, while computing the income chargeable to tax under the
Income-tax Act, 1961, where the accounts have been prepared by adopting Ind AS.