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.)

Madras HC accepts a novel sale and lease back transaction; allows lessor to claim depreciation on let out asset

Where there was a tacit agreement in form of offer and acceptance for sale of assets and existence of such assets could not be doubted, said sale and its lease back could not be rejected for purpose of allowing depreciation

Facts:

a) The assessee, a leasing company, entered into a sale and leaseback (SLB) agreement in respect of certain assets with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Electricity Board);

b) It purchased certain assets from Electricity Board and leased them back to Board. The Assessing Officer, however, disallowed depreciation on such assets to assessee treating those SLB transactions as loan transactions;

c) On appeal, the CIT (A) allowed the depreciation on such assets. Further, the Tribunal held that it was purely a finance transaction and, therefore, no depreciation could be allowed. Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant appeal.

The High Court held in favour of assessee as under:

1) Merely because terms of SLB agreement provided for deduction of lease installments from current consumption charges by way of priority, same could not be form basis to hold that transaction was not a SLB but a mere loan transaction;

2) The provision for repayment of the lease amount by way of installments from the current consumption charges was one mode of repayment in order to ensure that there was no default in paying the installments. There was no flaw in such a provision made in the agreement for repayment;

3) Merely because the assets were all eligible for 100 per cent depreciation, it could not be held that the entire transaction would become doubtful. So long as the sale-cum-lease back agreement was real as between the parties and the transaction was carried out in accordance with law, in the absence of any flaw in the said agreement, one could not doubt the whole transaction;

4) The fact that sale was accepted as between assessee and Electricity Board and after settlement of lease amount, assessee would continue to retain its ownership in no uncertain terms stipulated in agreement, and when such a transaction was not against law, there was no reason to doubt such transaction;

5) As far as the conduct of the parties was concerned, there were no clandestine dealings involved. Every correspondence between the parties was disclosed and placed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, depreciation claimed by assessee was to be allowed - FIRST LEASING CO. OF INDIA LTD. V. ACIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 213 (Madras)

Sec. 32: Sale And Lease Transactions By Banks Are Valid: ITAT Ahd

UTI Bank Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

S. 32: Sale & lease transactions by banks are genuine and eligible for depreciation
The assessee, a Bank, purchased windmills worth Rs. 27 crore in a sale-and-lease-back transaction and claimed depreciation thereon. The AO & CIT(A) rejected the claim and held that the transaction was not one of purchase but was a finance transaction in which the windmills were received as security on the basis that (a) under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the assessee was not permitted to engage in any business other than banking, (b) the lease rentals were fixed on the basis of interest on advances and other charges receivable by the assessee as a financier and were not co-related to the projected income on the capacity of each wind energy generator, (c) the assessee was not entitled for surplus income on excess generation of power and was not to suffer any loss owing to lesser production or any other contingencies, (d) the return of the assessee on financing was granted by taking interest-free deposit, (e) the assessee had no responsibility of labour, repairs, taxes etc in running of the project and (f) though the purchase of wind energy generators was in the assessee’s name, the land and power purchase agreements with the Electricity Boards were not in its name. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD allowing the appeal:

S. 32 allows depreciation if the asset is “owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business“. There is no requirement that the asset must be used by the assessee himself. It is sufficient if the asset is utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee. The argument, relying on McDowell 154 ITR 148 (SC), that Sale & Lease Back transactions are a devise for lowering the tax effect cannot be accepted. Sale & Lease Back transactions are genuine and cannot be considered to be sham. By virtue of the judgement in Cosmo Films Ltd 338 ITR 266 (Del), the contrary judgements in MidEast 87 ITD 537 (Mum) (SB) and Induslnd Bank 135 ITD 165 (Mum) (SB) are impliedly reversed (ICDS Ltd 350 ITR 527 (SC) & Development Credit Bank Ltd (ITAT Mum) followed).

Contrast with State Bank of India (ITAT Mum) where it was held that banks are not eligible to carry out operational leasing and that transactions of this sort cannot be regarded as genuine leases. See also Hathway Investments (ITAT Mum) where SLB transactions were held to be non-genuine

S. 32: Lease transactions by Banks are in the nature of loans/ advances. Transaction of sale & lease back of railway assets cannot be treated as genuine

State Bank of India vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 32: Lease transactions by Banks are in the nature of loans/ advances. Transaction of sale & lease back of railway assets cannot be treated as genuine

The assessee, a Bank, entered into a sale and lease back transaction with Konkan Railway Corporation pursuant to which it bought assets like railway tracks, rails, sleepers etc for a consideration of Rs. 25 crore and leased it back for a period of 84 months for a monthly lease rental. The AO & CIT(A) disallowed the claim for depreciation on the ground that the sale and lease back transaction was in the nature of a financial transaction and that it was given the shape of a lease transaction only in order to enable the assessee-bank to claim depreciation and reduce its taxable income. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD dismissing the appeal:

The real object of the entering into the sale and lease back transaction so far as Konkan Railway is concerned is to raise funds. The transaction of sale of the asset to the assessee bank and its lease back to Konkan Railway cannot be separated. It was not possible for Konkan Railway to sell out the railway system. Thus, the sale transaction was merely on paper and to facilitate the financial arrangement by the assessee to Konkan Railway without involving any real intention of transfer of the assets. The terms of the lease agreement are only to secure the interest of the bank till the recovery of the full amount along with the interest. The assessee cannot exercise the real and actual ownership over the asset keeping in view the facts and circumstances and nature of the asset in question. Further, under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 read with RBI circular dated 19.2.1994, banking companies can undertake the activities of equipment leasing but these are required to be treated on par with loans and advances. Therefore, the activity of equipment leasing permitted by the RBI is only in the nature of finance lease. The terms and conditions specified by the RBI for income recognition of lease transactions are also on par with the manner in which a loan transaction is treated. In view of the said circular, there is no scope for treating the instant lease agreement as that of an operating lease (IndusInd Bank 135 ITD 165 (Mum) (SB) followed; ICDS 350 ITR 527 (SC) distinguished on the basis that the lease there was not by a Bank but by a NBFC).

See also Hathway Investments (ITAT Mumbai) where a similar view was taken. But also see Development Credit Bank (ITAT Mum) where a contrary view was taken and it was held that IndusInd Bank 135 ITD 165 (Mum)(SB) is no longer good law following Cosmo Films 338 ITR 266 (Del)

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