Clause 228 Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit.
Income Tax Bill, 2025
Introduction
The Indian tonnage tax regime was introduced to provide a simplified and competitive taxation structure for shipping companies, aligning with global best practices. The regime departs from traditional income computation by taxing shipping businesses based on the net tonnage of qualifying ships, rather than on actual profits. Over the years, this regime has been governed by a series of provisions, notably sections 115V to 115VZC in Chapter XII-G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Among these, Section 115VJ specifically addresses the treatment of common costs and the allocation of depreciation for assets not exclusively used in the tonnage tax business.
The Income Tax Bill, 2025, currently under consideration, proposes a revised and consolidated approach to the taxation of shipping companies. Clause 228 of the Bill encapsulates the special provisions relating to the income of shipping companies, with sub-clauses (14) and (15) directly corresponding to the issues of common cost allocation and depreciation apportionment. This commentary undertakes a detailed analysis of these sub-clauses, compares them with the existing Section 115VJ, and explores their implications for stakeholders, while highlighting areas of continuity, change, and potential legal or practical challenges.
Objective and Purpose
The legislative intent behind both the existing and proposed provisions is to ensure a fair and rational allocation of expenses and depreciation between the tonnage tax business and other business activities of a shipping company. This is critical because shipping companies often diversify into related or unrelated businesses, and assets or costs may be shared across these activities. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk of revenue leakage, manipulation, or disputes regarding the quantum of deductible expenses and depreciation claims.
The purpose of these provisions is threefold:
- To prevent the artificial inflation or deflation of profits attributable to the tonnage tax business through improper allocation of shared costs and depreciation;
- To provide an administratively feasible and equitable method for such allocation, balancing certainty for taxpayers and discretion for tax authorities;
- To align Indian law with international practices for shipping taxation, thereby enhancing the competitiveness of Indian shipping companies.
Detailed Analysis
1. Clause 228(14) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
- This provision addresses the allocation of "common costs"-expenses that are incurred for the benefit of both the tonnage tax business and other business activities. The use of the phrase "reasonable basis" is significant, as it provides flexibility to account for the diverse operational structures of shipping companies. The provision does not prescribe a specific formula or method, leaving room for the adoption of various allocation keys, such as turnover, asset usage, time spent, or any other rational basis relevant to the facts of the case.
- The open-ended nature of "reasonable basis" is both a strength and a weakness. It allows for tailored solutions that reflect commercial reality but may also result in disputes between taxpayers and the tax authorities regarding what is "reasonable" in a given context. The provision, however, is consistent with established legal principles that require expenses to be matched to the income-generating activity to which they relate, and to prevent double deduction or misallocation.
- The clause presumes that the tonnage tax business is distinct and identifiable within the company's overall operations, and that reliable records are maintained to support the allocation of common costs. In the absence of such records, disputes may arise, and the Assessing Officer may be required to exercise judgment, guided by precedents and administrative instructions.
2. Clause 228(15) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
- This sub-clause deals with the allocation of depreciation in respect of assets that are shared between the tonnage tax business and other business activities. The explicit exclusion of "qualifying ships" from this allocation is logical, as such ships form the core of the tonnage tax regime and their income is computed based on tonnage, not actual depreciation.
- The provision vests significant discretion in the Assessing Officer ("AO"), who must determine the "fair proportion" of depreciation to be allocated, "having regard to the use of such asset" for each business. The language is similar to that used in Section 38(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with the apportionment of depreciation for assets used partly for business and partly for other purposes. However, here the context is the division between two business segments, both of which may be income-generating, but subject to different tax regimes.
- The provision requires the AO to consider the actual usage of the asset-possibly measured in terms of time, output, or another relevant factor. For example, if an office building is used 60% for the tonnage tax business and 40% for other activities, depreciation would be apportioned accordingly. The lack of a statutory formula means that companies must maintain detailed usage records, and that disputes may arise regarding the appropriate basis of allocation.
- The phrase "fair proportion" is intended to ensure equity and prevent either overstatement or understatement of depreciation in the computation of tonnage income or regular business income. The AO's decision is subject to appellate review if disputed.
3. Section 115VJ of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Section 115VJ is almost identical, in both substance and language, to Clause 228(14) and (15) of the 2025 Bill. It establishes the principles for allocating common costs and depreciation, using the same standards of "reasonable basis" and "fair proportion" determined by the AO, with reference to actual use.
- The section has been interpreted in practice and by courts to require a factual analysis of the company's operations, the nature of the assets, and the extent to which costs and assets are shared. The section does not prescribe a specific methodology, but the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and courts have emphasized the need for proper documentation and rational allocation keys.
Practical Implications
The practical impact of these provisions is significant for shipping companies that have diversified operations. Key implications include:
- Compliance Burden: Companies must maintain detailed records of cost allocation and asset usage. This may require time tracking, activity logs, or cost center accounting.
- Discretion and Disputes: The absence of a statutory formula gives rise to discretion on the part of both the taxpayer and the AO, increasing the risk of disputes, especially in the absence of clear documentation.
- Impact on Tax Liability: The allocation of common costs and depreciation affects the computation of tonnage income and regular income, thereby impacting overall tax liability. Over-allocation to the tonnage tax business may reduce regular taxable income, while under-allocation may increase it.
- Audit and Litigation: These provisions are potential flashpoints for audit scrutiny and litigation, as they directly affect the taxable base. Companies must be prepared to justify their allocation methods and data.
- Effect on Business Structure: Companies may be incentivized to segregate tonnage tax and non-tonnage tax businesses more clearly, or to structure asset ownership and usage to minimize allocation disputes.
Comparative Analysis: Clause 228(14)/(15) vs. Section 115VJ
| Aspect |
Clause 228(14)/(15) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 |
Section 115VJ of the Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Analysis |
| Common Costs |
Common costs attributable to the tonnage tax business to be determined on a reasonable basis. |
Identical language-reasonable basis for allocation. |
No substantive difference; both require rational allocation, leaving method open to facts and circumstances. |
| Depreciation Allocation |
Depreciation on assets (other than qualifying ships) not exclusively used for tonnage tax business to be allocated on a fair proportion, determined by AO, considering actual use. |
Identical language and standard. |
No substantive change; AO's discretion continues, with reference to use. |
| Discretion to AO |
Explicitly provides for AO to determine fair proportion based on usage. |
Same. |
Both vest discretion in AO, subject to judicial review. |
| Prescriptive Formula |
None provided. |
None provided. |
Both rely on facts and circumstances; no statutory formula. |
| Scope and Coverage |
Part of a consolidated and modernized regime in the 2025 Bill. |
Part of Chapter XII-G, specific to tonnage tax regime. |
Substantially the same in content; broader context in the new Bill may affect interpretation. |
| Policy Objective |
Continues the objective of fair allocation, preventing tax arbitrage. |
Same objective. |
Continuity in policy intent. |
Notable Observations and Potential Issues
- Continuity: The 2025 Bill retains the core principles of Section 115VJ, reflecting legislative satisfaction with the existing approach.
- Administrative Guidance: The lack of prescriptive rules may necessitate further administrative guidance or CBDT circulars to ensure consistency and minimize disputes.
- Judicial Interpretation: Past judicial pronouncements on Section 115VJ will remain relevant for interpreting the new provisions, unless the context or language materially changes.
- Potential for Reform: Stakeholders may argue for more detailed rules or safe harbors to reduce uncertainty and compliance costs.
Comparative Perspective: International Practices
Many jurisdictions with tonnage tax regimes (e.g., the UK, Singapore, Greece) also provide for the segregation of shipping and non-shipping income, and require reasonable allocation of shared costs. The Indian approach, emphasizing reasonableness and AO discretion, is broadly consistent with international norms, although some countries provide more detailed administrative guidelines or safe harbor rules.
For example, the UK's tonnage tax regime specifies certain apportionment rules and requires companies to maintain documentation supporting their allocation. The Indian approach, while similar in principle, could benefit from more detailed administrative guidance to reduce litigation and enhance certainty.
Interpretational Ambiguities and Potential Issues
Several ambiguities and practical challenges arise from the wording of both the existing and proposed provisions:
- Definition of Common Costs: The law does not define "common costs," leaving it open to interpretation. Disputes may arise as to whether certain costs (e.g., management salaries, administrative overheads) should be allocated, and on what basis.
- Basis of Allocation: While "reasonable basis" and "fair proportion" are flexible, they are inherently subjective. Different AOs may adopt different standards, leading to inconsistency.
- Burden of Proof: The onus is on the taxpayer to substantiate the allocation with evidence. Inadequate documentation may lead to adverse inferences.
- Role of Technology: Advances in ERP and cost accounting systems may facilitate more accurate allocation, but smaller companies may lack such capabilities.
- Interaction with Other Provisions: The allocation under these provisions may have knock-on effects on other parts of the Act, such as minimum alternate tax (MAT) computations, transfer pricing, or profit-linked incentives.
Stakeholder Impact
The primary stakeholders affected are:
- Shipping Companies: Must ensure robust accounting and documentation to support allocation of costs and depreciation. Strategic decisions regarding asset usage and business structure may be influenced by these provisions.
- Tax Authorities: Must exercise judgment in evaluating allocations, balancing revenue protection with administrative feasibility. Training and standardized guidelines may be beneficial.
- Advisors and Auditors: Play a crucial role in advising clients and certifying the reasonableness of allocations, potentially facing professional liability for errors.
- Policymakers: May need to monitor the practical impact and consider more detailed rules or safe harbors if disputes are frequent.
Conclusion
Clause 228(14) and (15) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, faithfully carry forward the principles embodied in Section 115VJ of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the allocation of common costs and depreciation between tonnage tax and other business activities of shipping companies. The provisions are designed to prevent tax arbitrage, ensure fair attribution of expenses, and align with international practice. However, the reliance on broad standards such as "reasonable basis" and "fair proportion" introduces subjectivity and the potential for disputes, underscoring the need for robust documentation and, possibly, further administrative guidance. As shipping companies continue to diversify, the importance of these provisions will only grow, making their effective implementation and interpretation critical for both taxpayers and the tax administration.
Alternative Titles for the Commentary
- Allocation of Common Costs and Depreciation in Tonnage Tax Regime: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Clause 228(14)/(15) and Section 115VJ
- Interpreting Reasonableness and Fairness: Treatment of Shared Costs under India's Tonnage Tax Laws
- From Section 115VJ to Clause 228: Continuity and Challenges in Allocating Costs for Shipping Companies
- Common Costs and Depreciation Apportionment in Shipping Taxation: Legal Perspectives under Indian Law
Full Text:
Clause 228 Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit.
Dated: 14-5-2025
9911796707
