Depreciation on intangible assets allowed where earlier years accepted the claim and no distinguishing facts were shown.

Depreciation on intangible assets acquired as part of a going concern was allowable where the same claim had been accepted in earlier assessment years and the Tribunal had already upheld depreciation on those assets in the assessee's case. No distinguishing facts were shown for the year under appeal, so a different view was not justified. The revenue's reliance on a Supreme Court decision was rejected because that precedent was factually distinguishable and not controlling on the issue. The assessee therefore succeeded on allowance of depreciation.

---

---

Issues: Whether depreciation on intangible assets acquired as part of a going concern was allowable for the assessment year in question.

Analysis: The claim had already been accepted in earlier assessment years, and the Tribunal had upheld allowance of depreciation on the same intangible assets in the assessee's case. No material distinguishing the current year from the earlier years was shown. The reliance placed by the revenue authority on a Supreme Court decision was found to be factually distinguishable and therefore not controlling on the issue.

Conclusion: Depreciation on the intangible assets was held allowable, and the assessee succeeded on the issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where depreciation on acquired intangible assets has been consistently allowed in earlier years on the same facts, and no distinguishing circumstance is shown for the year under appeal, a different view is not warranted merely on a factually distinguishable precedent.

---