Skip to main content

Depreciation On Goodwill Created Through Scheme Of Amalgamation Allowed

Cause Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/s Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court, ITA 475/2022

Date of Judgment/Order : 01.08.2023

Corum : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma

Citied: Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Smifs Securities Limited, (2012) 13 SCC 488

Background

The respondent had amalgamated with M/s Valere Power India Limited in terms of a Scheme of Amalgamation which came to be sanctioned by Delhi High Court on 05 February 2014. As per the scheme of amalgamation, where value of liabilities and amount of equity capital allotted /payment to the equity shareholders exceeds the value of assets of the transferor company taken over, such excess shall debited to the goodwill account. Accordingly, the assessee claimed on depreciation on goodwill which claim was denied by the AO. On appeals, the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Appellate Tribunal allowed the depreciation. Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The High Court referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs (supra) observed that the IT Dept. contended that it would be the provisions of Section 49 of the Income Tax Act which would apply and that both the CIT (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have clearly erred in holding otherwise. Learned counsel referred to the definition of “cost of acquisition” as spelt out in Section 55(2) of the Act and which had defined that expression to also include goodwill of a business or profession or a trademark or brand name associated with the business or profession or any other intangible asset.

Section 49 deals with cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition while Section 55 refers to the meaning of "cost of acquisition".

The HC observed that the provisions of the Act referred to by learned counsel for the appellant are placed in a Chapter dealing with the “Capital Gains”. That Chapter itself pertains to profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset and Section 47 of the Act in express terms excludes the transfer of a capital asset in terms of a scheme of amalgamation.

The HC then rejecting the view of the Dept. held that it is well settled that a transfer in terms of a scheme of amalgamation which is sanctioned is accomplished by operation of law as opposed to an act of parties. The assessee's the goodwill has enumerated from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and not out of accounting principles. It is in that backdrop that the decision in Smifs assumes significance. The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Smifs clearly recognises goodwill to be an intangible asset and on which depreciation can clearly be claimed in terms of Section 32(1) of the Act.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more