https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783243 ITAT held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and therefore revision u/s 263 was unjustified. The AO had duly inquired into and accepted depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamations and on the Voot platform, following binding precedent, a plausible legal view, and the principle of consistency. Once depreciation on goodwill for Studio 18 had been allowed in the year of capitalization and supported by earlier ITAT orders, the Department could not reverse its stand absent any change in facts or law. Goodwill arising on amalgamation was held to be a new intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii). Alleged errors in carry-forward of losses were held not prejudicial to Revenue. Assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 May 2026 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783243 ITAT held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and therefore revision u/s 263 was unjustified. The AO had duly inquired into and accepted depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamations and on the Voot platform, following binding precedent, a plausible legal view, and the principle of consistency. Once depreciation on goodwill for Studio 18 had been allowed in the year of capitalization and supported by earlier ITAT orders, the Department could not reverse its stand absent any change in facts or law. Goodwill arising on amalgamation was held to be a new intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii). Alleged errors in carry-forward of losses were held not prejudicial to Revenue. Assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783243