Tribunal grants depreciation on 'Brand' but denies on goodwill; Revenue's appeal dismissed

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, permitting depreciation on the 'Brand' but not on goodwill. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(Appeals)'s decisions on the depreciation amount and the deletion of additions under sections 40(a) and 43B. The Tribunal emphasized the treatment of 'Brand' as an intellectual property right eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) and supported the transferee's right to claim deductions for liabilities assumed in a business transfer.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of depreciation on 'Brand' received by the assessee under the Scheme of Arrangement u/s 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Depreciation allowed by the CIT(Appeals) on certain assets.
3. Deletion of addition made under the proviso of section 40(a) and section 43B by the CIT(Appeals).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowability of Depreciation on 'Brand':
The assessee's appeal focuses on the allowability of depreciation on 'Brand' received under a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by the High Court. The AO disallowed the depreciation, treating the transaction as a demerger under section 2(19AA) of the Act and applying the written down value (WDV) method. The CIT(Appeals) held that the scheme did not fulfill the conditions of a demerger and thus, the revalued amounts should be considered for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals) that the transaction was a slump sale, not a demerger, and that the brand falls within the ambit of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, allowing depreciation on the 'Brand'. However, depreciation on goodwill was disallowed.

2. Depreciation Allowed by the CIT(Appeals) on Certain Assets:
The Revenue's appeal contested the CIT(Appeals) allowing Rs. 87.76 crores as depreciation against Rs. 15.98 crores allowed by the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, noting that the Revenue did not dispute the factual findings that the transaction was a slump sale and the valuation was done at arm's length by an approved valuer.

3. Deletion of Addition Made Under the Proviso of Section 40(a) and Section 43B:
The AO disallowed deductions under sections 40(a) and 43B, arguing that the liabilities related to another company, KEC Infrastructure Ltd., and not the assessee. The CIT(Appeals), applying the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in Anil Engineering Corporation vs. ITO, held that the transferee of the business is eligible to claim deductions for liabilities taken over and paid subsequently. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co., which supports the right of the successor to claim such deductions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part, permitting depreciation on the 'Brand' but not on goodwill. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(Appeals)'s decisions on the depreciation amount and the deletion of additions under sections 40(a) and 43B. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the treatment of 'Brand' as an intellectual property right eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) and supports the transferee's right to claim deductions for liabilities assumed in a business transfer.

---