Tribunal Grants Depreciation on Commercial Rights in Catering Contract, Overturns Previous Order.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to allow depreciation on the commercial rights acquired under the catering contract. It concluded that the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs was for acquiring commercial rights, which qualify as "business or commercial rights of similar nature" under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, thus eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal also instructed the AO to determine the value of tangible assets acquired and allocate the remaining amount to intangible assets to grant appropriate depreciation, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs. 3,79,688.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill:

The core issue in this appeal concerns the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs. 3,79,688. The assessee, a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Radhakrishna Hospitality Services Ltd. (RHSL), engaged in catering and allied services, had acquired a catering contract from Mr. Rui Smith, the proprietor of M/s. Skyline Caterers, for Rs. 27 lakhs. This amount was recorded as goodwill in the assessee's balance sheet, and depreciation at 25% was claimed, treating it as an intangible asset.

During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the depreciation on goodwill, arguing that goodwill is not explicitly listed under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, which includes intangible assets like know-how, patents, copyrights, and trademarks. The AO disallowed the depreciation, interpreting that goodwill does not fall within the scope of "similar nature" as specified in section 32(1)(ii).

On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the payment was not for any intangible asset specified in section 32(1)(ii) and was primarily for a non-compete clause, thus constituting capital expenditure not eligible for depreciation.

Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal examined the agreement between the assessee and Mr. Rui Smith, noting that Rs. 25 lakhs was paid for acquiring the catering contract and Rs. 2 lakhs for the non-compete clause. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the entire payment was for the non-compete clause. It emphasized that the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs was specifically for acquiring the rights under the catering contract and not merely for goodwill or the non-compete clause.

The Tribunal highlighted that the nomenclature in the books of account is not determinative of the transaction's nature, as established by the Supreme Court in Kedamath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The substance of the agreement revealed that the payment was for acquiring commercial rights under the contract, which are intangible assets akin to those specified in section 32(1)(ii).

The Tribunal further clarified that the rights acquired under the contract qualify as "business or commercial rights of similar nature" under section 32(1)(ii), as they are tools facilitating the assessee's business. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on these commercial rights.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the assessee also acquired tangible assets (articles and paraphernalia) under the agreement, which are eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(i). The AO was directed to ascertain the value of these tangible assets and allocate the balance amount for the intangible asset to grant appropriate depreciation.

Distinguishing Case Law:

The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Bharatbhai J. Vyas v. ITO, where depreciation on goodwill simplicitor was disallowed. In the current case, the payment represented commercial rights under an agreement, not mere goodwill, making the previous case inapplicable.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow depreciation in light of this judgment, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal.

---