Case: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI Vs. VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD

. The appellant herein is the Income Tax Department, on the other hand, the Respondent - M/s Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.b. On 29.12.1999, the Respondent filed return of income for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 declaring loss of Rs 70,24,178/- while claiming an amount of Rs 1,65,12,077/- as deduction for lease equalization charges.c. On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer, after perusal of the return and hearing the parties, vide Assessment Order dated 28.01.2005 disallowed deduction claimed as the lease equalization charges amounting to Rs.1,65,12,077/- and added the same to the income of the Respondent under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the IT Act).. Being aggrieved with the said Assessment Order, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Learned CIT (Appeals), vide order dated 15.09.2005, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the. Being dissatisfied, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the ITAT. Vide order dated 19.02.2010, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the Respondent while setting aside the orders passed by Learned CIT (Appeals) and the Assessing. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took the matter before the High Court. The High Court, vide judgment and order dated 07.02.2012, dismissed the appeals at the preliminary stage while confirming the decision of the. Hence, this instant appeal has been filed before this Court by the Revenue.

Court's reasoning:
The Guidance Note reflects the best practices adopted by the accountants throughout the world. The ICAI is a recognized body vested with the authority to recommend accounting standards for ultimate prescription by the Central Government in consultation with the National Advisory Committee of Accounting Standards for the presentation of true and fair financial statements.10. The purpose behind the amendment in Section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956 was to give clear sight that the accounting standards, as prescribed by the ICAI, shall prevail until the accounting standards are prescribed by the Central Government under this sub-section. The purpose behind the accounting standards was to arrive at a computation of real income after adjusting the permissible deprecation. It is not disputed that these accounting standards are made by the body of experts after extensive study and research.12. At the first look, it appears that the method of accounting provided in the Guidance Note of 1995, on the one hand, adjusts the inflated cost of interest of the assets in the balance sheet. Secondly, it captures real income by separating the element of capital recovery (essentially representing repayment of principal amount by the lessee, the principal amount being the net investment in the lease), and the finance income, which is the revenue receipt of the lessor as remuneration/reward for the lessors investment. As per the Guidance Note, the annual lease charge represents recovery of the net investment/fair value of the asset lease term. The finance income reflects a constant periodic rate of return on the net investment of the lessor outstanding in respect of the finance lease. While the finance income represents a revenue receipt to be included in income for the purpose of taxation, the capital recovery element (annual lease charge) is not classifiable as income, as it is not, in essence, a revenue receipt chargeable to income tax.. The method of accounting followed, as derived from the ICAIs Guidance Note, is a valid method of capturing real income based on the substance of finance lease transaction. The rule of substance over form is a fundamental principle of accounting, and is in fact, incorporated in the ICAIs Accounting Standards on Disclosure of Accounting Policies being accounting standards which is a kind of guidelines for accounting periods starting from 01.04.1991. It is a cardinal principle of law that the difference between capital recovery and interest or finance income is essential for accounting for such a transaction with reference to its substance. If the same was not carried out, the Respondent would be assessed for income tax not merely on revenue receipts but also on non-revenue items which is completely contrary to the principles of the IT Act and to its Scheme and spirit.. The bifurcation of the lease rental is, by no stretch of imagination, an artificial calculation and, therefore, lease equalization is an essential step in the accounting process to ensure that real income from the transaction in the form of revenue receipts only is captured for the purposes of income tax. Moreover, we do not find any express bar in the IT Act which bars the bifurcation of the lease rental. This bifurcation is analogous to the manner in which a bank would treat an EMI payment made by the debtor on a loan advanced by the bank. The repayment of principal would be a balance sheet item and not a revenue item. Only the interest earned would be a revenue receipt chargeable to income tax. Hence, we do not find any force in the contentions of the Revenue that whole revenue from lease shall be subjected to tax under the IT Act.. Without a doubt, in a catena of cases, this court has discussed the relevancy of the Guidance Note. While dealing with one of such matters, this Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, New Delhi vs. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries (2014) 15 SCC 129  held as under:. So as to be more accurate about the word Turnover, one can either refer to dictionaries or to material which are published by bodies of Accountants. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as the ICAI) has published some material under the head Guidance Note on Tax Audit under Section 44B of the Income Tax Act. The said material has been published so as to guide the members of the ICAI. In our opinion, when a recognized body of Accountants, after due deliberation and consideration publishes certain materials for its members, one can rely upon the. In the present case, the relevant Assessment Year is 1999-2000. The main contention of the Revenue is that the Respondent cannot be allowed to claim deduction regarding lease equalization charges since as such there is no express provision regarding such deduction in the IT Act. However, it is apt to note here that the Respondent can be charged only on real income which can be calculated only after applying the prescribed method. The IT Act is silent on such deduction. For such calculation, it is obvious that the Respondent has to take course of Guidance Note prescribed by the ICAI if it is available. Only after applying such method which is prescribed in the Guidance Note, the Respondent can show fair and real income which is liable to tax under the IT Act. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Respondent claimed deduction by virtue of Guidance Note rather it only applied the method of bifurcation as prescribed by the expert team of ICAI. Further, a conjoint reading of Section 145 of the IT Act read with Section 211 (un-amended) of the Companies Act make it clear that the Respondent is entitled to do such bifurcation and in our view there is no illegality in such bifurcation as it is according to the principles of law. Moreover, the rule of interpretation says that when internal aid is not available then for the proper interpretation of the Statute, the court may take the help of external aid. If a term is not defined in a Statute then its meaning can be taken as is prevalent in ordinary or commercial parlance. Hence, we do not find any force in the contentions of the Revenue that the accounting standards prescribed by the Guidance Note cannot be used to bifurcate the lease rental to reach the real income for the purpose of tax under the IT. To sum up, we are of the view that the Respondent is entitled for bifurcation of lease rental as per the accounting standards prescribed by the ICAI. Moreover, there is no express bar in the IT Act regarding the application of such accounting. In view of above detailed discussion, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned decision of the High Court