Facts of the Case

  • The Grant Issue: The respondent-assessee (Airline Allied Services Ltd.) received a sanctioned grant of ₹35 crores from the Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs aimed at improving air connectivity in the North-Eastern Region. Under a Memorandum of Understanding, the assessee took four ATR-42-320 aircraft on lease for a 60-month (five-year) period and was required to provide 4,177 seats per week.
  • Accounting Treatment: Following the mercantile system of accounting and Accounting Standard 12 (AS-12) prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), the assessee spread this grant over the five-year lease period to match the receipt with operational expenses. For the assessment year in question, it declared ₹7.29 crores as income.
  • Assessing Officer's Stand: The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this treatment, asserting that the entire ₹35 crores accrued and was received in the relevant year, meaning it should be brought to tax completely in a single year. This resulted in an addition of ₹27.71 crores to the assessee's income.
  • The Inventory Issue: The AO made a separate addition of ₹534.79 lakhs because the statutory auditor qualified the accounts, noting that specific details regarding inventories of this value could not be definitively ascertained. The assessee clarified that these inventories were maintained by Indian Airlines according to procedure, and the figures were pulled directly from their records into the assessee's books.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a government grant sanctioned for operational expenses over a five-year lease period can be spread systematically over those five years under AS-12 and Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, or whether the entire amount must be taxed in the year of receipt.
  2. Whether the addition of ₹534.79 lakhs concerning unverified inventory details was sustainable when the underlying records were maintained by a third party (Indian Airlines) and fully disclosed in the Annual Report.

Petitioner’s (Revenue) Arguments

  • The Revenue contended that because the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, the entire grant of ₹35 crores accrued and was received during the period relevant to the assessment year, making it fully taxable immediately.
  • Regarding the inventory, the Revenue relied heavily on the auditor's qualification to argue that the valuation and existence of the ₹534.79 lakhs inventory could not be verified.

Respondent’s (Assessee) Arguments

  • The assessee argued that the grant was intrinsically tied to operational obligations spanning 60 months. Spreading the grant matched the revenue with the actual related costs on a systematic and rational basis, ensuring a "true and fair view" under AS-12, Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, and Section 211 of the Companies Act.
  • On the inventory matter, the assessee noted that the details were fully transparent, itemized in Schedule IV of the Annual Report, and maintained systematically by Indian Airlines. Furthermore, the Revenue failed to file a remand report to contest these facts during the first appellate stage.

Court Order / Findings

  • On the Government Grant: The Delhi High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Court observed that the method of accounting based on AS-12 matches receipts with related costs and cannot be faulted or ignored. Declaring ₹7.29 crores for the year in question was legally sound, and no substantial question of law arose.
  • On the Inventory Addition: The Court dismissed the Revenue's grievance, highlighting that the details were fully disclosed in the Annual Report. Given that the AO declined to submit a remand report to contest the assessee's factual explanations, the addition was deleted.
  • Final Ruling: Finding no substantial question of law on either issue, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 

Important Clarifications & Related Case Law

The Court referenced critical Supreme Court precedents establishing that accounting methods prescribed by the ICAI must be respected if they offer a systematic, rational, and true picture of profits:

  • CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Private Limited (2009): Affirmed the validity of utilizing standard accounting practices to determine real income.
  • CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (P) Limited (2008): Recognized that matching principles and recognized accounting standards are vital to computing taxable gains under Section 145.
  • J.K. Industries Limited & Another vs. Union of India & Others (2007): Reiteration of the legal sanctity of adoption of formal Accounting Standards. 

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2013:DHC:3970-DB/SKN08082013ITA132013.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.