Background
The intensifying Covid-19
pandemic and the looming uncertainty on future business outlook have put the
emergency brakes on India Inc. Sudden lockdown, supply side disruption, adverse
foreign exchange rate, travel restriction as also uncertainty on vaccine to
cure the misery have added to the uncertainty, pushing Captains of India Inc.
into rescue mode. Clearly, while the immediate focus is to save the ship from
sinking, tax considerations also require due consideration in time to come.
This article focuses on some of the direct tax issues which are likely to be
faced by Indian taxpayers.
Deduction
of expenses incurred on Covid 19
As the pandemic increased its
spread into the country, India Inc. rose to the occasion and started supporting
various noble causes of the society in terms of supplying food, medical
supplies, setting up of quarantine centres, etc. Most of the corporates joined
hands in the national interest and contributed to PM CARES and CM Covid-19
Funds to support frontline workers and assist in the medical war. MCA, with a
noble intention, amended Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Cos Act’) to
include Covid-19 expenditure as eligible CSR expenditure in compliance with CSR
law.
Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of
the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) provides that any expenditure incurred by
an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred
to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) shall not be deemed
to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of the business
or profession.
The amendment to Schedule VII of
the Companies Act read with the Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act
raises the following issues:
a) Whether the expenditure on Covid-19 is tax deductible for an
assessee not required to comply with CSR regulations of the Companies Act,
2013?
b) Can an assessee claim business expenditure for
Covid -19 related expenditure which he does not claim to be CSR for the purpose
of compliance with section 135 of Cos Act?
It is possible to take a view
that Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act is applicable only to those
assessees who are covered by section 135 of the Companies Act. Thus, if an
assessee is not covered by the said regulation, the limitation of Explanation 2
to section 37 is not applicable. Courts have held that factors like meeting
social obligation, impact on goodwill on contribution to society, etc. meet the
test of commercial expediency and deduction has been granted1. Thus,
onus will be on the assessee to prove nexus of the expenditure with the
business and the positive impact on business to perfect the claim of deduction.
Branding of company on distribution of food and essential requirements, images
of employees wearing company branded shirts and supporting larger cause, media
reports, posting on social websites will all support the claim for deduction.
The issue arises in the second
category i.e. an assessee who is otherwise covered by section 135 of Companies
Act who does not claim Covid-19 related expenditure for compliance with CSR
laws. The difficulty arises as Explanation 2 to section 37(1) disallows
expenditure ‘referred to in section 135’. Referred to would mean ‘mentioned’ in
section 135 of the Companies Act. Explanation 2 to section 37(1) fictionally
deems such expenditure as not being for business purpose. Whilst argument in
favour of deduction seems a better view of the matter, it is recommended that
assessee should take fact-specific legal advise before claiming deduction.
Impact on lease rental
Lockdown and
social distancing are likely to have significant impact on lease rentals. The
impact may be deep for let-out properties in shopping malls and hotels.
Further, the sudden lockdown may have resulted in economic disruption of
business of the lessee, impairing its ability to pay rent. Following situations
are likely to arise:
a) Lessee does not pay rent for lockdown period by invoking force
majeure, which is accepted by the lessor;
b) Lessee invokes force majeure which is not accepted by the
lessor;
c) Lessor and lessee defer rent for a mutually
agreed period;
d) Lessee is unable to pay rent and vacates the
premises;
e) Lessor is subsequently unable to find a
lessee for the property either on account of lockdown or lower rental yield;
In case of situation a), act of force
majeure goes to the root of the contract making the contract unworkable. On
account of the said event, a view could be taken that the property ceases to be
a let-out property. Accordingly, it may be possible for the lessor to seek
benefit of vacancy allowance u/s 23(1)(c). The said provision states that in
case actual rent received or receivable is less than deemed Annual Let out
Value (ALV) on account of vacancy then, actual rent received or receivable will
be deemed to be ALV. In this case, vacancy arises contractually. In other
words, even though goods or assets of lessee may continue to be lying in said
property but still it has to be treated as not let out, absolving the lessee from the liability to pay rent.
Vacancy in the context in which it is used in section 23(1)(c) will need to be
interpreted as the antithesis of let out.
Situation b) is tricky as there
is a rent dispute during the lockdown period. Section 23(1)(b) provides that
when actual rent received or receivable is higher than ALV, then said amount
will be treated as ALV. ‘Receivable’ postulates concept of accrual. As per one
option, lessor may treat same amount as unrealised rent and offer the same in
the year of receipt u/s 25A. However, if it is required to keep rent as
receivable in books of accounts to succeed under the Contract Act, then in such
an event, tax liability will arise.
Situation c) involves mere
deferment of payment of rent and accordingly lessor will be required to pay tax
on rent component as it fulfils the test of receivable u/s 23(1)(b).
Situation d) is a case comparable
to unrealised rent. Explanation to section 23 read with Rule 4 provides for
exclusion of such rent if the conditions prescribed in Rule 4 are complied
with.
Issue in case of situation e)
arises as section 23(3) permits only two houses to be treated as self-occupied.
Situation narrated in e) needs to be distinguished from a situation wherein
assessee in past years has offered income from more than two houses under the
head Income from house property. Conclusion does not change for such assessee.
Situation e) deals with a situation wherein assessee desires to actually let
out his house but could not find a tenant. In such situations, the Tribunal2 has held that even if the house remains
vacant for the entire year despite the best attempts of the assessee, then
benefit of vacancy allowance u/s 23(1)(c) should be granted to the assessee and
accordingly ALV for such property would be Nil. Against this proposition, there
is also an adverse decision in the case of Susham Singla [2016] 76
taxmann.com 349 (Punjab & Haryana)3. Perhaps a
distinguishing feature could be that in cases where vacancy allowance was
granted by the Tribunal, the assessee was able to demonstrate efforts made to
let out property.
Impact on business income
Revenue
recognition
Revenue recognition for computing
income under the head ?profits and gains of business or profession’ is governed
by the principles of accrual enshrined in section 4 as also ICDS IV dealing
with revenue recognition. ICDS IV permits revenue recognition in respect of
sale of goods only if the following criteria are met:
- Whether significant risks and rewards of ownership have been
transferred to the buyer and the seller retains no effective control
- Evaluate reasonable certainty of its ultimate collection
These criteria are relevant for
revenue recognition for F.Y. 2019-20. On account of lockdown and logistics
issues, it is possible that goods dispatched could not reach the customer.
Contractually, even though the transaction may have been concluded, the seller
was obliged to deliver goods to the buyer. In such a case, because of lockdown,
goods may be in transit or in the seller’s warehouse. In such a situation,
significant risk and reward of ownership continues to be with the seller.
Accordingly, the seller may not be required to offer the said amount to tax.
Further, economic stress may change the credit profile of the customer, raising
a question on the realisability of sale proceeds of the goods sold even
pre-Covid-19 outbreak. In such a case, even though the test of accrual would be
met, since there is uncertainty in ultimate collection, the assessee may not
recognise such revenue. This criterion is also important as the customer may
invoke force majeure clause or material adverse clause and turn back
from its commitment.
Section 43CB of the Act read with
ICDS IV requires the service industry to apply Percentage of Completion Method
(POCM). If duration of service is less than 90 days, the assessee can apply
Project Completion Method (PCM) and offer revenue to tax on completion of the
project. Disruption caused due to pandemic and work from home is likely to
impact numerous service contracts. Assessee will have to determine stage of
completion of contract on 31st March 2020 for each open contract at
year end to determine its chargeable income. It is equally possible that a
contract which was estimated to be completed in less than 90 days may take more
time and accordingly move from PCM to POCM basis of recognition. Thus, it is
possible that an income which was estimated to be offered to tax in F.Y.
2020-21 may partially be required to be taxed in F.Y. 2019-20, changing the
assumptions at the time of computing advance tax. An issue which judiciary is
likely to face is whether the 90 days period should be read as a rigid test or
exceptional events like Covid-19 can be excluded for computing the 90 days’
periods.
Provision
for onerous contract
Ind AS 37 requires recognition of
provision for onerous contract. An onerous contract is a contract in which the
unavoidable costs of meeting the obligations under the contract exceed the
economic benefits expected to be received under it. If an entity has a contract
that is onerous, the present obligation under the contract shall be recognised
and measured as a provision.
Section 36(1)(xviii) of the Act
provides that mark to market (M2M) loss or other expected loss shall be
computed in accordance with ICDS. Section 40A(13) of the Act provides that no
deduction or allowance shall be allowed in respect of any M2M loss or expected
loss except as allowable u/s 36(1)(xviii). ICDS 1 provides that expected loss
shall not be recognised unless the same is in accordance with other ICDS. ICDS
X provides that no provision shall be recognised for costs that need to be
incurred to operate in the future. On co-joint reading of aforesaid law, no
deduction shall be allowed for onerous contract under normal provisions.
However, for MAT purposes, such provision will be deductible as it cannot be said
that such provision is for unascertained liability. This treatment will require
an assessee to accurately track expenses incurred on such contract in future
years and claim it as deduction in year of incurrence.
Liquidated
damages
Disruption in the supply chain
may result in claims or counter claims as it is possible that the assessee
would not be in a position to meet its contractual obligations. The contract
may provide for payment of liquidated damages. Courts have held that such
payment is tax deductible4.
Remeasurement
of provision
Lockdown and social distancing
have resulted in India Inc. rethinking on extension of warranty and service
period in respect of goods sold prior to Covid-19. This is likely to result in
change in warranty provision. Provision for warranty is tax deductible if
otherwise the requirements of ICDS X are met. Practically for companies
following Ind AS, warranty provisions are discounted to fair value. However,
ICDS X expressly prohibits deduction based on discounting to net present value
basis. This mismatch will require an assessee to accurately reconcile claims
made in the past ignoring NPV basis, revise the provision and ignore NPV
discounting for claiming deduction. This is much easier said than done.
Further, companies following Ind
AS are required to make provision for debtors based on Expected Credit Loss
(ECL) method. This method requires consideration of not only the historic data
but also of the future credit risk profile of debtor. In turbulent times like
these, making an estimate of the future profile of a customer is likely to be
challenging since the business outlook is uncertain. Further, the impact of
lockdown on each customer, its ability to raise finances and stay afloat
involves significant assumptions and customer-specific data. Normative
mathematical models cannot be relied upon. It is possible that ECL provision
may increase for F.Y. 2019-20. Such provision may not be tax deductible under
normal computation provisions [Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(vii)]. As regards
MAT, the issue is debatable. Gujarat High Court’s Full Bench in case of CIT
vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd5 has held that if the provision is accounted
as reduction from debtor / asset side and not reflected separately in
liabilities side then, in such case said provision is not hit by any limitation
of Explanation 1 to section 115JB and is tax deductible.
Inventory
valuation
ICDS 2 permits valuation of
inventory at cost or Net Realisable Value (NRV) whichever is lower. It is
possible that on account of prolonged shutdown, disruption in supply chain,
overhaul of non-essential commodities, some of the inventory which may be lying
in warehouse or stuck in transport may no longer be marketable e.g perishable
goods, inventory with short shelf life (food products) may be required to be
disposed of. In such case, it should be possible to recognise NRV at Nil. Care
should be taken to obtain corroborative
evidence in terms of internal technical reports, subsequent measures to
dispose of, etc. to substantiate Nil realisable value.
Fixed
Asset
The spread of Covid-19 has had a
differing impact on various nations. It is possible that some of the fixed assets
acquired could not be installed on account of cross border travel prohibitions
not only in India but across the globe. In such a case, such assets which were
earlier contemplated to start active use in F.Y. 2019-20 will miss the
deadline. In absence of satisfaction of the user test, no depreciation can be
claimed in F.Y. 2019-20. Further in terms of ICDS V – tangible fixed assets,
cost attributable to such fixed asset may also be required to be capitalised.
Further, if such asset is purchased out of borrowed funds, interest expenditure
will be required to be capitalised. Unlike Ind AS 23, ICDS IX does not suspend
capitalisation when active development is suspended. This mismatch will require
the assessee to accurately determine interest cost which is expensed for books
purpose and capitalise it as part of borrowing for tax purposes. It is equally
possible that unexpected delay may impact advance tax projections made for F.Y.
2019-20.
Shares and securities
The Act provides special
anti-abuse provisions in respect of dealing in shares and securities. Sections
50CB and 56(2)(x) regulate transactions
where actual consideration is less than fair market value. Rule 11UA provides a
computation yardstick to compute fair market value. The economic downturn may force
some promoters to sell their shares at less than Rule 11UA value to genuine
investors either to repay debts borrowed on pledge of shares or to raise
capital for future survival. Provisions of sections 50CB and 56(2)(x), if
invoked, may result in additional tax burden. Fortunately, Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT
vs. Subhodh Menon relying on the
Supreme Court decision in the case of K P Varghese read down the provision to apply only in
abusive situations.
Further, the pandemic may require
promoters to pump in capital into the company. Section 56(2)(viib) regulates
share infusion by a resident shareholder. The provision proposes to tax
infusion of share capital above the fair market value as computed by a merchant
banker. DCF is a commonly accepted methodology to value business. DCF requires
reasonable assumption of future cash flows, risk premium, perpetuity factor
etc. Considering that the present situation is exceptional, it may involve
significant assumptions by the valuer as also the company. Further, there will
be an element of uncertainty, especially when the business outlook is not
clear. It is possible that the actual business achievements may be at material
variance with genuine assumptions.
In contrast, the existing
situation may have an impact on capital infused in the past, say 2-3 years,
which were justified considering the valuation report availed from the Merchant
Banker at the said time. Tax authorities may now rely upon actual figures and question
the valuation variables used by the Merchant Banker. Tax authorities may
attempt to recompute fair value considering actual figures. In such a
situation, the onus will be on the assessee to demonstrate impact of Covid-19
on valuation assumptions made in the past. Evidence such as loss of major
customer, shutdown in major geographies, increased cost of borrowing, capacity
underutilisation will support the case of the assessee to justify valuation
done before Covid-19 breakout.
Conclusion
One hopes normalcy returns soon.
Aforesaid are some of the issues which, in view of the authors, are only the
tip of the iceberg. If the pandemic deepens its curve, it is likely to result
in significant business disruption. Every impact on business has definite tax
consequences and tax professionals have a special role to play.
________________________________________________
1 CIT vs. Madras Refineries Ltd., (2004) 266 ITR 170 (Mad);
Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. vs. JCIT, (2002) 80 ITD 300
(Cuttack); Surat Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2010) 5 ITR(Trib) 280 (Ahd)
2 Sachin R. Tendulkar vs.
DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 253 (Mumbai – Trib.); Empire Capital (P.) Ltd vs.
DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 253 (Mumbai – Trib.); Ms. Priyananki Singh Sood vs. ACIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi –
Trib.)
3 SLP dismissed by Supreme Court [2017] 81 taxmann.com 167 (SC)
4 PCIT vs. Green
Delhi BQS Ltd [2019] 417 ITR 162 (Delhi); CIT vs. Rambal
(P.) Ltd [2018] 96 taxmann.com 170 (Madras); PCIT vs. Mazda Ltd
[2017] 250 Taxman 510 (Gujarat) ; Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros [1961] 41
ITR 350 (SC)
5 [2017] 397 ITR 55 (Gujarat)
6 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 15 (Mumbai)
7 [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC)
