Depreciation allowed on goodwill from court-approved amalgamation following Smits Securities precedent under section 32

ITAT Ahmedabad allowed depreciation on goodwill arising from court-approved amalgamation. The acquiring company discharged consideration through equity shares based on enterprise valuation of Rs. 289.30 crores. The excess payment over net assets represented goodwill for intangible benefits including customer base, network, and technological systems. Following Supreme Court precedent in Smits Securities, the tribunal held such goodwill eligible for depreciation under section 32. The CIT(A)'s rejection based on tax evasion allegations was overturned, with ITAT directing the AO to allow the depreciation claim.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill.
2. Validity of assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity.
3. Treatment of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill:
The appellant argued that the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill by the Revenue authority under Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable, citing the Supreme Court's decision that goodwill is eligible for depreciation. The appellant's goodwill arose from a court-sanctioned amalgamation scheme, which was approved by the Gujarat High Court. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation, asserting that the amalgamation's primary purpose was tax evasion. However, the tribunal found that the scheme was genuine and in public interest, as sanctioned by the High Court, and directed the AO to allow the depreciation claim. The tribunal emphasized that the goodwill was not artificially created but resulted from a legitimate business transaction.

2. Validity of Assessment Order in the Name of a Non-Existent Entity:
The appellant contended that the assessment order was invalid as it was passed in the name of KIPL, a non-existent entity post-conversion into LLP. However, this ground was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, and the appellant pressed the matter only on merit before the tribunal. The tribunal did not delve into this issue further as it was not actively pursued by the appellant.

3. Treatment of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation:
The appellant treated the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of KIPL as that of the LLP post-conversion. The AO disallowed this, as the initial depreciation claim on goodwill was not allowed. The tribunal, however, directed the AO to allow the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation, aligning with their decision to allow depreciation on goodwill.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the AO to allow depreciation on goodwill and the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation, emphasizing the legitimacy and court approval of the amalgamation scheme.

---