No depreciations to owner on assets given on lease if loan transaction was disguised as sale and lease back transaction

Assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation on asset which was purchased from Gujarat State Electricity Board and same was immediately leased back to it, since the transaction was a sham transaction

Facts:

a) The assessee had purchased energy meters of different makes for a consideration of Rs. 4.99 crores from Gujarat State Electricity Board (GEB) and these meters (assets) were then immediately leased back to GEB vide a lease agreement;

b) It accordingly claimed depreciation on the said meters under proviso to section 32(1). The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) disallowed the depreciation claim of assessee by holding that the alleged lease transaction was in reality a transaction of finance. On appeal, the CIT (A) upheld the order of AO.

The Tribunal held in favour of revenue as under:

1) The assessee’s contention that transaction was with a State Government and it would be highly improper to impute any collusiveness or colourable nature of the transaction without any concrete evidence was misconceived;

2) The facts on the file itself spoke that the transaction in question was a colourable device with the twin purposes of financing the GEB and at the same time making such an arrangement to enable the financer to claim depreciation on the assets and in lieu thereof to pay reduced rate of interest to the financer in proportion to the value of benefit availed by the financer, for which it otherwise was not entitled to;

3) A perusal of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reveals beyond doubt that even if the consideration or object of an agreement may not be expressly forbidden by law, but if it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of law, the same will not be lawful;

4) It is always the goods or the assets itself which are the primary subject of a valid transfer, not the incidental benefits, which automatically pass on to the transferee with the transferred asset;

5) In the case in hand, only the incidental tax benefits were intended to be transferred without any intention to transfer the asset itself. Thus, whole of the effort had been made to transfer the right to claim depreciation on the assets to the assessee for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, but not the assets itself. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed depreciation on electric meters - HATHWAY INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD. V. ACIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 389 (Mumbai - Trib.)

Finance Lease Is A Sham Transaction For Depreciation Claim: ITAT Mumbai

Hathway Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 32: A finance lease designed as a sale-and-lease back has to be treated as a sham transaction

The assessee, an investment company, bought electric meters from the Gujarat State Electricity Board (GSEB) which were leased back to GSEB simultaneously. The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on the purchase cost of the meters. The AO and CIT(A) rejected the claim on the ground that the circumstances like no physical possession of the meters given etc showed that the transaction of ‘sale and lease-back’ was a “sham” and that it was one merely of giving finance and that the assets were held as a security for the finance given. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD:

A distinction between an ‘operating lease’ and a ‘finance lease’ has been made by the Special Bench in IndusInd Bank 135 ITD 165 (Mum) (SB) on the basis of which it can be said that a ‘finance lease’ is a ‘sale’ which is given the colour of a ‘lease’ by the parties for their mutual benefit and to avoid tax. In such transactions, it has to be seen whether the sale transaction is a real transaction or a sham transaction with the object of enabling the alleged purchaser to claim himself as the owner of the goods, which are further claimed to be leased back to the original owner of the goods. In a sham transaction of sale and lease back the ownership of the goods is not transferred to the alleged lessor, but is shown to be done, so as to enable the purchaser to claim ownership for the goods for the purpose of tax relief. On facts, the ‘sale and lease back’ transaction is a sham transaction done with the object to facilitate the benefits of depreciation to a person who otherwise is not eligible to claim the same. The intention of the parties was not that of sale or lease but was a loan transaction. The rates of interest/ rental have been fixed taking into consideration that the equipments are eligible for 100% depreciation and it is provided that if the claim of depreciation is changed, the rental in the shape of interest will accordingly change. Such clauses cannot be a part of any lease agreement but finance agreement only because in a normal lease agreement, the lessee is not concerned as to what benefits are available to the owner/ lessor under the Income-tax Act. The contention that as the transaction is with a State Government undertaking, it would be highly improper to impute any collusiveness or colourable nature of the transaction is misconceived. The argument that there is no bar for the assessee for making tax planning so as to reduce its taxes, provided it is within the framework of the law, is also not acceptable as u/s 23 of the Indian Contract Act, even if the consideration or object of an agreement may not be expressly forbidden by law, but if it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of law, the same will not be lawful. Engaging in sham transactions with the object of reducing tax liability cannot be said to be a case of tax avoidance but is one of tax evasion (ICDS 350 ITR 527 (SC), IndusInd Bank 135 ITD 165 (Mum)(SB) & Development Credit Bank referred)

Contrast with ICDS 350 ITR 527 (SC) where it was held that even a “financier” satisfies the “ownership” & “user” test for depreciation and with Development Credit Bank (ITAT Mumbai) (the AM was common) where it was held that IndusInd Bank 135 ITD 165 (Mum)(SB) is no longer good law