2020 (8) TMI 594 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on Goodwill and Capital Assets Allowed by Tribunal in Tax Appeal

M/s. Classic Stripes Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT 6 (2) Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai

M/s. Classic Stripes Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT 6 (2) Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of the assessee to depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation.2. Validity of claiming depreciation on goodwill through revised computation instead of a revised return.3. Justification for disallowance of depreciation on capital assets purchased and used by the assessee.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of the Assessee to Depreciation on Goodwill Arising Out of Amalgamation:The primary issue in this appeal was whether the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill arising from the merger of the Safety Products Division of M/s Forma Sports Pvt. Ltd. (FSPL) with the assessee company. The goodwill was recorded due to the difference between the book value of net assets and the face value of equity shares issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation claim, arguing that the goodwill was self-generated and not a commercial right. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, stating that the goodwill arose from the market value of immovable assets, which was not in line with the High Court's order. However, the Tribunal found that the goodwill arose from the merger, which was duly approved by the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), which held that goodwill arising from amalgamation constitutes an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on goodwill.2. Validity of Claiming Depreciation on Goodwill Through Revised Computation Instead of a Revised Return:The assessee did not claim depreciation on goodwill in the original return but did so through a revised computation during the assessment proceedings. The AO and CIT(A) rejected this claim, stating that deductions must be claimed in the return of income. The Tribunal referred to the Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision in CIT vs. Zydus Wellness Ltd. (162 ITD 604) and the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336), which held that appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to entertain new claims even if not made in the original return. Following these precedents, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on goodwill through revised computation.3. Justification for Disallowance of Depreciation on Capital Assets Purchased and Used by the Assessee:The final issue involved the disallowance of depreciation on capital assets purchased from M/s Deep Enterprises and Mahabir Enterprises, which were listed as suspicious parties by the Sales Tax department. The AO disallowed the depreciation, suspecting purchases from the grey market to avoid VAT. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee provided invoices, delivery challans, and bank statements showing payments by crossed account payee cheques. However, due to the suppliers' dubious status, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee might have purchased the capital goods from the grey market. Therefore, the Tribunal disallowed depreciation attributable to the VAT portion but allowed depreciation on the capital assets on a recurring basis.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, granting the assessee depreciation on goodwill and capital assets (excluding the VAT portion), while emphasizing the entitlement to depreciation on a recurring basis.