TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). Tax Appeal Nos. 47 of 2009 to 51 of 2009, 1975 of 2009 and 346 of 2010 are preferred by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal whereas Tax Appeal Nos. 470 of 2012 and 182 of 2014 have been filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal. 2. Both these groups of appeals, namely, one preferred by the assessee and the other preferred by the revenue, have been admitted by this court. While admitting the appeals of the assessee, this court framed the following questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not granting depreciation under section 32 of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assets. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed Cross-Objection in the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, following its own decision in the case of Bharatbhai J. Vyas (supra), held that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on intangible assets. The Tribunal, accordingly, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) by allowing the appeal of the revenue. The Cross-Objection filed by the assessee was dismissed. Therefore, the assessee is before us. 5. In the appeals filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, the facts are that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urities Ltd., reported in (2012) 348 ITR 302. The relevant observations in paragraph Nos. 6 and 8 of the said judgement are as under: "6. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. In the present case, the Assessing Officer, as a matter of fact, came to the conclusion that no amount was actually paid on account of goodwill. This is a factual finding. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], for short] has come to the conclusion that the authorised representatives had filed copies of the Orders of the High Court ordering amalgamation of the above two Companies, that the assets and liabilities of M/s. YSN Shares and Securities Private Limited were transferred to the assessee for a consideration; that the difference between the cost o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee and against the revenue by this court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, therefore, contended that the decision of the authorities below is required to be reversed by allowing the appeals in light of the decision of the Apex Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Varun Patel has taken us through page No. 76 of the appeal and contended that the calculation which is made is false. The relevant portion page No. 76 is extracted below: "The amalgamation has been accounted for under `Pooling of interest method'. Accordingly the assets, liabilities and reserves of VLPL as at 1st April, 1998 have been taken over at their book value and the equity shares in the company have been issued as consideration there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r than the equity shares already held therein, immediately before the amalgamation, by the transferee company or its subsidiaries or their nominees) become equity shareholders of the transferee company by virtue of the amalgamation. (iii) The consideration for the amalgamation receivable by those equity shareholders of the transferor company who agree to become equity shareholders of the transferee company is discharged by the transferee company wholly by the issue of equity shares in the transferee company except that cash may be paid in respect of any fractional shares. (iv) The business of the transferor company is intended to be carried on, after the amalgamation, by the transferee company. (v) No adjustment is intended to be made to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent has contended if this method is adopted then they will not amount to goodwill and the same is required to be rejected or the matter remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Divatia supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellantassessee and contended that in view of the decision of this court in Tax Appeal No. 380 of 2006, the appeal of the revenue may not be entertained. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. All throughout the Tribunal has relied on the decision in the case of Bharatbhai J. Vyas vs. ITO (supra) which has been reversed by this court in Tax Appeal No. 380 of 2006 by considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-....