TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not from effective date i.e. A.Y. 2010-11. The Ld. Assessing Officer may be directed to allow full depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs. 2,35,25,149/- as claimed in return of income as the prayer made by the assessee. 3. At the time of the hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. AR submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1806/Ahd/2017 copy whereof has been submitted before us. 4. The Ld. DR failed to controvert such contention made by the Ld. AR. Heard the parties, perused the relevant material available on record including the order passed by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench the relevant portion whereof is as follows:- "7. During the course of assessment on perusal of depreciation chart annexed with the Audit Report the AO noticed that assessee has claimed depreciation on goodwill @ 25% to the amount of Rs. 3,13,66,865/- W.D.V. of Rs. 12,54,67,458/-. On query the assessee explained that the assessee company was a resultant company out of the demerger of Adani Energy Ltd. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat approved the scheme of demerger and ordered appointed date as 01.01.2007. Meaning that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee in its cross object ion concerns eligibility of depreciation of goodwill arising on demerger. The learned AR submitted that additional ground concerning the issue does not require any fresh investigation of facts and therefore urged for admission of the same in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) : CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290 (SC). Elaborating further, the learned AR referred para 7 of page no.33 to the assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Act concerning AY 2012-13 and submitted that the controversy has arisen because the scheme of the demerger was sanctioned by the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide its order dated 09.12.2009 w.e.f . the appointed date of 01.01.2007 as mentioned in the draft scheme of demerger. The sanction was accorded by the Hon'ble High Court in FY 2009-10 i.e. AY 2010-11. The assessee claimed depreciation on the goodwill arising on the demerger in the AY 2010-11 as the order was received in FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11, the AO however complied depreciation on goodwill generated as a result of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment , however, the AO took a view that depreciation was allowable to the assessee on such goodwill from the date of sanction of the demerger scheme falling in AY 2007-08. The AO accordingly re-determined the gross block and WDV pertaining to depreciation of goodwill as a result the depreciation for AY 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 was artificially applied which was not claimed by the assessee at all in these years. The AO accordingly re-worked the WDV of the various FYs as tabulated above. 21.2 We are concerned with AY 2009-10 in quest ion. The AO has assumed depreciation of Rs. 5,57,63,315/ - pertaining to the aforesaid assessment year while redetermining the quantum of eligible depreciation in AYs 2010-11, 2011-12. 2012-13 & 2013-14. As a result of such re-determination of Assessment Year Depreciation claimed By respondent Depreciation computed by AO 2007-08 4,24,86,335/ - (Being 12.5% of value of goodwill on demerger i.e. Rs .33,98,90,680/ - ) 2008-09 7,43,51,086/ - 2009-10 5,57,63,315/ - 2010-11 4,24,86,335/ (Being 12.5% of value of goodwill on demerger i.e. Rs . ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imi lar view has been expressed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of ITO vs. Jasjit Singh (Del) in cross object ion Nos. 138 to 142/Del /2014 interim order dated 23.09.2014. We thus do not see any impediment in entertaining the additional grounds. The relevant facts are available on 21.6 In so far as the merits of the claim made in additional ground is concerned, we observe that where the AO has readjusted the quantum of depreciation in the subsequent assessment year, the assessee is within its legitimate rights to be granted depreciation in AY 2009-10 as per the figures worked by the AO himself . We do not see any perceptible reason for not admitting such claim of the assessee. We also find bonafides in the plea of the assessee for raising new claim on account of depreciation by way of additional ground at this belated stage. The order for the AY 2012-13 was passed on 29.03.2015. By virtue of this order, the assessee came to know about the revision in the claim of depreciat ion concerning AY 2012- 13. By that time, the order of the CIT(A) dated 13.12.2013 was already passed. Therefore, the assessee was incapacitated to put forward such new claim towards depreciation on....