Section 28(iv) – Waiver of loan

1. M/s Essar Shipping Limited vs. Commissioner of
Income-tax, City-III, Mumbai [Income-tax Appeal (IT) No. 201 of 2002 Date of order: 5^th March, 2020 [Order dated 16^th August, 2001
passed by the ITAT ‘A’ Bench, Mumbai in Income-tax Appeal No. 144/Ban/91 for
the A.Y. 1984-85] (Bombay High Court)

Section 28(iv) – Waiver of loan

The appellant company earlier was known as
M/s Karnataka Shipping Corporation Limited and carrying on the business of
shipping. During the relevant previous year, because of certain developments it
was amalgamated with M/s Essar Bulk Carriers Limited, Madras, whereafter it
came to be known as M/s Essar Shipping Limited.

In the assessment proceedings for the A.Y.
1984-85 following amalgamation, it filed a revised return of income wherein an
amount of Rs. 2,52,00,000 was claimed as a deduction being the amount of loan
given by the Government of Karnataka which was subsequently waived. It was
claimed on behalf of the appellant that the Government of Karnataka had written
off the said loan advanced to the appellant as the said amount had become
irrecoverable. The A.O. did not accept the claim of the appellant and observed
that waiver of loan benefited the appellant in carrying on its business and in
terms of the provisions contained in section 28, the said benefit enjoyed by
the appellant should constitute income in its hand. Accordingly, the aforesaid
amount was added to the total income of the assessee.

Aggrieved
by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals)-III,
Bangalore. The first appellate authority considered the requirement of section
28(iv) of the Act and held that waiver of loan could not be treated as a
benefit or perquisite because it was clearly a cash item. The amount would be
includible u/s 28(iv) only if it was a non-cash item and that cash item cannot
be treated as a perquisite. It was further held that what can be assessed u/s
28 are only items of revenue nature and not items of capital nature. Therefore,
waiver of loan cannot partake the character of income to be includible for
assessment. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. was deleted.

On further appeal by Revenue, the Tribunal
took the view that writing off of the loan was inseparably connected with the
business of the assessee and therefore this benefit had arisen out of the
business of the assessee. The amount written off was nothing but an incentive
for its business. It was held that the benefit was received by the assessee in
the form of writing off of the liability to the extent of the loan. Therefore,
it could not be said that the assessee received cash benefit. The Tribunal
opined that the A.O. had correctly made the addition considering the waiver of
loan as revenue receipt of the assessee and, therefore, set aside the finding
of the first appellate authority, thereby restoring the order of the A.O.

The appellant contended that to be an income
chargeable to income tax under the head ‘profits and gains of business and
profession’, the value of any benefit or perquisite has to arise from business
or the exercise of a profession and it should not be in cash. He submitted that
this court in Mahindra & Mahindra vs. CIT, 261 ITR 501 has
held that the income which can be taxed u/s 28(iv) must not only be referable
to a benefit or perquisite, but it must be arising from business. Secondly,
section 28(iv) would not apply to benefits in cash or money. The Supreme Court
in CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 404 ITR 1 had affirmed
the finding of the Bombay High Court and declared that for applicability of
section 28(iv) of the Act, the income should arise from the business or
profession and that the benefit which is received has to be in some other form
rather than in the shape of money.

On the other hand, the Department contended
that after a loan is waived or written off, it partakes the character of a
subsidy, more particularly an operational subsidy. Emphasis was laid on the
expression ‘operational subsidy’ to contend that the action of the Government
of Karnataka in writing off of the loan provided was an act of providing
operational subsidy to the assessee, thus extending a helping hand to the
assessee to salvage its losses thereby benefiting the assessee to the extent of
the waived loan and it is in this context that he placed reliance on the
decision of Sahney Steel & Press Works Limited (Supra) and
Protos Engineering Company Private Limited vs. CIT, 211 ITR 919.

The Court observed that section 28 deals with profits and gains of
business or profession. It says that the incomes mentioned therein shall be
chargeable to income tax under the head ‘profits and gains of business or
profession’. Clause (iv) refers to the value of any benefit or perquisite
whether or not convertible into money arising from business or the exercise of
a profession. The Court relied on the decision in the case of  Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (Supra)
wherein the Supreme Court was examining whether the amount due by Mahindra
& Mahindra to Kaiser Jeep Corporation which was later on waived off by the
lender constituted taxable income of Mahindra & Mahindra or not. The
Supreme Court held as under:

‘On a plain reading of section 28(iv) of
the Income-tax Act, prima facie, it appears that
for the applicability of the said provision, the income which can be taxed
shall arise from the business or profession. Also, in order to invoke the
provisions of section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, the benefit which is
received has to be in some other form rather than in the shape of money.’

In the above case, according to the Supreme
Court, for applicability of section 28(iv) of the Act the income which can be taxed has to arise from the business or profession. That apart,
the benefit which is received has to be in some other form rather than in the
shape of money. Therefore, it was held that section 28(iv) was not satisfied
inasmuch as the prime condition of section 28(iv) that any benefit or
perquisite arising from the business or profession shall be in the form of
benefit or perquisite other than in the shape of money, was absent. Therefore,
it was held that the said amount could not be taxed u/s 28(iv) in any circumstances.

The Court observed that the facts and issue
in the present case are identical to those in Mahindra & Mahindra
(Supra). Here also, a loan of Rs. 2.52 cores was given by the Karnataka
Government to the assessee which was subsequently waived off. Therefore, this
amount would be construed to be cash receipt in the hands of the assessee and
cannot be taxed u/s 28(iv). In view of the Supreme Court decision in Mahindra
& Mahindra, the earlier decision of this court in Protos
Engineer Comp. would no longer hold good.

The Court further observed that in the
decision in Sahney Steel & Press Works Limited (Supra) the
issue pertained to subsidy received by the assessee from the Andhra Pradesh
Government. The question was whether or not such subsidy received was taxable
as revenue receipt. In the facts of that case, it was held that such subsidies
were of revenue nature and not of capital nature.

Insofar as the argument of the Department,
that upon waiver of loan the amount covered by such loan would partake the
character of operational subsidy, the Court is unable to accept such a
contention. Conceptually, ‘loan’ and ‘subsidy’ are two different concepts.

In Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd.
(Supra), the Supreme Court held that the subsidy provided by the Andhra Pradesh Government was basically an endeavour of the state to extend
a helping hand to newly-set up industries to enable them to be viable and
competitive.

Thus, the Court held that there is a
fundamental difference between ‘loan’ and ‘subsidy’ and the two cannot be
equated. While ‘loan’ is a borrowing of money required to the repaid with
interest, ‘subsidy’ being a grant, is not required to be repaid. Such grant is
given as part of a public policy by the state in furtherance of the public
interest. Therefore, even if a ‘loan’ is written off or waived, which may be
for various reasons, it cannot partake the character of a ‘subsidy’.

The substantial question of law therefore is
answered in favour of the assessee by holding that waiver of loan cannot be
brought to tax u/s 28(iv) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

BCAJ:
Positive impact of COVID-19 on number of pages

Do not dwell in the past, do not
dream of the future, concentrate the
mind on the present moment

— 
Buddha

God doesn’t dwell in the wooden,
stony or earthen idols.
His abode is in our feelings, our thoughts

 — 
Chanakya