Vivek Jalan
In the case of a works contractor, an AMC provider, or another service provider, collection of the entire year's charges is done one go in advance. The amount is many a time recorded as "current liability" in the balance sheet as "income received in advance."
The question for income tax purposes is whether it is to be treated for income tax purposes that the entire amount is taxable income in the year of receipt or, on grounds of the "matching principle" and AS-9 guidelines, it is taxable under mercantile accounting and deferred. In the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI Vs M/s JOHNSON LIFTS PVT LTD [2024-VIL-211-MAD-DT], it was held that advance AMC receipts constitute income in the year of receipt as
1. There was no clause for a refund, and the amounts were non-refundable.
2. The provisions under Section 5 of the Income Tax Act mandate the inclusion of amounts received in total income when received, irrespective of when the service obligation is fulfilled.
3. The reliance on the "matching principle" under AS-9 is misplaced, especially where the consideration is received upfront and the service obligation spans a short duration (one year, say).
4. The principle is not absolute and must yield to specific tax laws.
5. Invocation of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act to substantiate the deferred liability treatment was erroneous, as the section pertains to remission or cessation of a liability, not recognition of revenue for services to be rendered.
It is pertinent to note that the Point of Taxation Rules under service tax and the VAT Rules were also deliberated in as much as, in case income is chargeable to tax there, then why should it not be taxed in income tax? However, the main difference there and here is the fact that such a rule for payment of tax on an advance basis is specially carved out in such laws. In the Income Tax Act, Section 145 allows acceptance of the accrual basis of accounting.
CAclubindia
