Over the years there have been several disputes between tax payers and Revenue Authorities on certain accounting policies adopted for determining taxable income. Normally, tax payers follow accounting treatment in line with the accounting standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
Income for income-tax purposes is not the same as for accounting purposes. Most accounting standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India have been notified under the Company Law and are, therefore, mandatory for companies to keep accounts in the manner prescribed. Even assessees other than companies are expected to follow the accounting principles enjoined by the standards. Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956, gives a format, which is also undergoing a change from April 1, 2012. Income-tax law, however, has its own deeming provisions and separate depreciation schedule. It is in this context that the Board was vested with power to prescribe accounting standards by an amendment to Sec. 145(2) by the Finance Act, 1995, with effect from April 1, 1997.
Accounting Standards 1 and 2 as applicable to all cases were issued in pursuance of such power practically adopting the first two standards of the Institute relating to accounting policies and prior period and extraordinary items. However, in 2011 two draft standards were proposed inviting comments from the public. It has been made clear that Tax Accounting Standards will override the other standards and that the statute will override tax accounting standards as well.
The Indian Revenue Authorities (IRA) believe that since ICAI AS provides flexibility of alternative accounting treatment, tax payers can plan payment of taxes by adopting a particular option, which results in a loss to the exchequer. The IRA believes that standardising one, or more, alternatives, in various standards for computing income precisely and objectively for tax purposes, will eliminate any loss to the exchequer. Tax Accounting Standards provide an independent framework for computation of taxable profits, making the accounting framework redundant.
Consequently, to harmonise accounting policies with Income Tax laws and significant developments concerning convergence with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the Government has constituted a committee (New Committee) comprising tax officials and professionals.
The New Committee has made certain recommendations which are the following:
- A separate Tax AS should be notified rather than incorporating accounting standards of ICAI in the Income Tax laws.
- In case of conflict, the provisions of Income Tax laws will prevail over the Tax AS.
- The Tax AS is applicable only for computing income and no separate sets of tax books of account are to be maintained by tax payers.
- A reduction in litigation, minimization of alternatives, and providing certainty to issues should be the guiding principles for drafting the Tax AS.
- The Tax AS should be applicable to all classes of tax payers.
- The tax auditor should certify that computation of taxable income is done in accordance with the provisions of the Tax AS. This will be an enormous challenge for auditors, and is a separate subject requiring thoughtful debate.
- A suggested draft for 14 tax accounting standards including valuation of stock, revenue recognition, effects of changes in exchange rates, among others.
Though Tax AS is in harmony with the respective accounting standards, there are modifications that may significantly impact taxable income of several companies. Some key areas are discussed below.
Construction Contracts
Tax AS mandates use of percentage of completion method for revenue recognition. Accordingly, the completed contract method is no longer permitted. Furthermore, if revenue recognition conditions are met under Tax AS, even uncertain revenue must be recognized in computation of income.
Revenue Recognition
Unlike AS-9, Tax AS does not require revenue to be measurable or collectible at the time of sale (there is an exception for price escalation claims and export incentives). As such, revenue will have to be recognized when other conditions of revenue recognition are met under Tax AS. A corresponding bad debt expense deduction can be claimed under the Act. The committee has recommended a separate Tax AS for revenue recognition by real estate developers until such guidance is issued; diversity may continue in the manner in which real estate developers apply this Tax AS.
Forex Rates
Tax AS provides that all gains or losses on forward exchange, or similar contracts entered into for trading or speculation, are to be recognized on settlement as opposed to mark-to-market. Entities recognized foreign currency transactions at an average weekly or monthly rate when the exchange rate did not fluctuate significantly. Tax AS has removed this option, providing that all foreign currency transactions should be recognized at the exchange rate prevalent on the transaction date. Furthermore, exchange differences on transactions that are not an integral part of the reporting enterprise should be recognized as income or expense, and not through the foreign currency translation reserve account as provided in AS-11.
Government Grants
Current accounting practices permit the capital approach of recording government grants, whereby these are recorded in the nature of promoter’s contribution or capital reserve. This is not permitted under Tax AS. Grants should be either reduced from the cost of the asset or recorded as income.
Borrowing costs
Tax AS requires capitalization of borrowing cost irrespective of the period of construction. The only exception is for inventories — Tax AS requires capitalization of borrowing costs only for inventories that require more than 12 months for completion. Tax AS provides that income from temporary deployment of specific borrowings is to be treated as income. Further, under TAS, for loans borrowed specifically for acquisition of qualifying asset, capitalization of borrowing costs commences from the borrowing date.
Contingent Assets
The draft Tax AS has recommended that a provision can be recognized only when it is reasonably certain that an outflow of economic resources will be required to settle an obligation. Whereas, the ICAI AS currently requires a provision to be created even in the case of 'probable' outflow of resources. The use of the term 'reasonably certain' is stricter and narrower than 'probable' and hence, will truncate such provision amounts when made. The term reasonably certain is not defined in the draft Tax AS, which may lead to uncertainty and consequent litigation. To avoid this, it is advisable for the term 'reasonably certain' to be defined.
Valuation of Securities
The ICAI AS provides that securities should be valued at lower of cost or net realizable value (NRV) on an individual basis. However, the draft Tax AS recommends that listed securities should be valued at lower of cost or NRV for a category as a whole. Further, it categorizes securities as Shares, Debt securities, Convertible securities and any other securities. At the end of the year, if a taxpayer has an exposure of losses on certain securities in his portfolio and the profit on certain securities off-set those losses, then a reporting of loss will be allowed only if there is an overall net loss. This is again a significant departure from the principle of 'prudence' to be followed for determining profits of an enterprise. Thus, it may be prudent to avoid tinkering with the established principle of prudence prescribed in ICAI AS so long as the same is being followed consistently.
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT)
One critical aspect impacting accounting policies followed by a tax payer and its tax liability is the computation of MAT. For MAT, it is recommended that Tax AS not be made part of the Tax Law, since, if it is done, companies may end up paying MAT on an accelerated basis and not on their prudently computed profits as per ICAI AS.
In summary, the likely consequences of the Tax AS for tax payers will be evaluate aligning accounting policy with Tax AS or maintain separate records, prepare reconciliations to address inconsistencies with Tax AS. They will have to incur higher administrative or compliance time and costs and have a larger onerous responsibility of tracking, reconciling and adjusting differences on year-to year basis. Further, they have to convince tax auditors to seek tax audit report based on evaluation of events and estimate relevant costs and losses for a period relevant to the audit. The successful harmonization of Tax AS with AS, and the achievement of objectives solely depend on how Tax AS is implemented by tax authorities and the judicial system.