9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the treatment of exchange rate fluctuation on capital assets.
Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana heard multiple appeals concerning the application of Section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to exchange rate fluctuations on capital assets. The main issue was whether the value of a capital asset should be notionally enhanced due to foreign exchange fluctuation at the end of each financial year or at the time of payment during the year. In the case under consideration, the respondent-assessee had raised loans in foreign currency for machinery purchase, leading to an increase in the loan amount due to a fall in the value of the Indian rupee. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim for depreciation on the enhanced payment, stating that depreciation could only be claimed when the additional liability of the loan was actually paid. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) initially upheld this decision but later allowed the claim based on Section 43A of the Act. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 43A both before and after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2002. The unamended Section 43A allowed for adjustments in the actual cost of assets due to exchange rate fluctuations without requiring actual payment of the increased liability. However, the amended Section 43A, effective from 1.4.2003, mandated that adjustments be made only at the time of actual payment, irrespective of the accounting method used by the assessee. Referring to the judgment in Woodward Governor India (P) Limited's case, the High Court concluded that the amendment to Section 43A was amendatory and not clarificatory, making it applicable prospectively from 1.4.2003. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2003-04, the unamended provisions of Section 43A would apply. As the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, they were entitled to exchange rate fluctuation benefits for the relevant assessment years. The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue, citing that the judgments relied upon did not support the revenue's case due to differing factual circumstances. Consequently, the substantial question of law was answered against the revenue, and the appeals were dismissed.
|
