Home ›

Search Results For: Depreciation

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 11, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 20, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32(1)(ii) Depreciation on Intangible asset: Rights acquired under a non-compete agreement gives enduring benefit & protects the assessee's business against competition. The expression "or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include non-compete rights (Ferromatice Milacron India 99 TM.com 154 (Guj) followed)

The legislature thus did not intend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the specified intangible assets but also to other categories of intangible assets which may not be possible to exhaustively enumerate. It was concluded that the assessee who had acquired commercial rights to sell products under the trade name and through the network created by the seller for sale in India were entitled to deprecation

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 3, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32(2): There is no conflict between CIT vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd 394 ITR 73 (Bom) & Miltons/ Confidence Petroleum because while the former is at the stage of final hearing, the latter is at the stage of admission. Accordingly, the request for reference to a Larger Bench is not acceptable. Merely filing of an SLP would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance

Therefore, no reason has been shown to us at the final hearing, why the decision is Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) is not to be followed. Merely filing of an SLP from the order of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance. The Revenue is entitled to challenge the view taken by us following our decision in Hindustan Unilever (supra) by challenging this decision in the Apex Court. However, in the present facts, at this stage, there can be no question of our not following the order in Hindustan Unilever

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32: Goodwill is an intangible asset. It falls under the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" and is eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The question whether when a firm has been succeeded by a company and net assets of the firm have vested in the company, there is any transfer of goodwill in the real sense and whether the valuation of goodwill done by the assessee is erroneous has to be decided by the Division Bench

It is vivid from the discussion made supra that qua the issue of depreciation on goodwill, the authorities below have divided it into two broader compartments by holding that i) no depreciation can be legally allowed on the amount of genuine goodwill in terms of section 32 of the Act; and ii) when a firm is succeeded by a company and all its net assets vest in the company, there is no transfer of goodwill in real sense and further the valuation of goodwill done by the assessee in the instant case is fallacious

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: December 12, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32/ 43(6): The slump price paid to acquire a business has to be bifurcated between tangible and intangible assets for purposes of allowing depreciation. If the allocation is done in a systematic manner by an independent valuer and there is no fallacy, the AO is bound by the allocation. If an asset forms part of the block of assets and depreciation is allowed, it loses its identity and depreciation cannot be denied in a later year

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue also was of the view that no part of slump price is to be attributed to the know-how, patents and trademarks, since the same has not been acquired by the assessee. Even if we accept the said stand of learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, ultimately after the slump price has been attributed first to the value of tangible assets, then the balance is to be attributed to intangible assets and once the same is done and whether it is under the umbrella of know-how, trademarks, patents or goodwill, it makes no difference since all these are covered under the umbrella of intangible assets, which are eligible for claim of depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The goodwill is also an intangible asset eligible for said depreciation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 22, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32(1)(ii) Depreciation on non-compete fee: The AO should consider whether the verdict in Sharp Business System 211 TM 576 (Del) that non-compete rights are not intangible assets for depreciation can apply to a case where there is no joint venture between the person paying the non-competition fee and the recipient and both parties are outsiders. Law laid down in Nat Steel Equipments vs. CCE AIR 1988 SC 631 on the meaning of the term "similar" to be considered

The Assessing Officer shall redecide this issue afresh after comparing the facts in the case of the assessee with the case of Delhi High Court in Sharp Business Systems (supra) in accordance with law and give clear finding how the case of assessee is covered or not covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Systems. We may point out that in the case of the assessee there was no joint venture between the person paying the non competition fee and the person receiving the non competition fee. Both the parties were entirely outsiders and the time of the continuity of the agreement was also 10 years not 07 years. We also direct the Assessing Officer that while considering the decision of Delhi High Court he should also consider the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nat Steel Equipments vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in AIR 1988 SC 631 as in our opinion this decision will also have bearing in the case of the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 11(1)(a) vs. 32: Even if the entire expenditure incurred for acquisition of a capital asset is treated as application of income for charitable purposes u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee is also entitled to depreciation u/s 32. The argument that the grant of depreciation amounts to giving double benefit to the assessee is not acceptable. S. 11(6) which bars depreciation on expenditure applied for charitable purposes is prospective and applies only from AY 2015-16

Income of a Charitable Trust derived form building, plant and machinery and furniture was liable to be computed in normal commercial manner although the Trust may not be carrying on any business and the assets in respect whereof depreciation is claimed may not be business assets. In all such cases, section 32 of the Income Tax Act providing for depreciation for computation of income derived from business or profession is not applicable. However, the income of the Trust is required to be computed under section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 14, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98 to 2000-01
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IA contains substantive and procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected. The claim for 100% deduction, without taking into consideration depreciation, is anathema to the scheme u/s 80-IA of the Act which is linked to profits. If the contention of the assessees is accepted, it would allow them to inflate the profits linked incentives provided u/s 80-IA of the Act which cannot be permitted

It may be stated at the cost of the repetition that judgment in Mahendra Mills was rendered while construing the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time, whereas we are concerned with the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the Act. Marked distinction between the two Chapters, as already held by this Court in the judgments noted above, is that not only Section 80-IA is a code by itself, it contains the provision for special deduction which is linked to profits. In contrast, Chapter IV of the Act, which allows depreciation under Section 32 of the Act is linked to investment. This Court has also made it clear that Section 80-IA of the Act not only contains substantive but procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected. The assessees/appellants want 100% deduction, without taking into consideration depreciation which they want to utilise in the subsequent years. This would be anathema to the scheme under Section 80-IA of the Act which is linked to profits and if the contention of the assessees is accepted, it would allow them to inflate the profits linked incentives provided under Section 80-IA of the Act which cannot be permitted

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 21, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1991-92
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 50(2): If an undertaking is sold as a running business with all assets and liabilities for a slump price, no part of the consideration can be attributed to depreciable assets and assessed as a short-term capital gain u/s 50(2). If the undertaking is held for more than three years, it constitutes a "long-term capital asset" and the gains are assessable as a long-term capital gain

In our considered opinion, the case of the respondent (assessee) does not fall within the four corners of Section 50 (2) of the Act. Section 50 (2) applies to a case where any block of assets are transferred by the assessee but where the entire running business with assets and liabilities is sold by the assessee in one go, such sale, in our view, cannot be considered as “short-term capital assets”. In other words, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business. Such is not the case here because in this case, the assessee sold the entire business as a running concern

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 8, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1992-93
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32: Title to immovable property cannot pass when its value is more than Rs.100/- unless it is executed on a proper stamp paper and is also duly registered with the sub-Registrar. Accordingly, a lessee cannot be said to be the "owner" for purposes of claiming depreciation. Under Explanation 1 to s. 32, the lessee is entitled to depreciation on the cost of construction incurred by him but not on the cost incurred by the owner and reimbursed by the lessee

We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Building which was constructed by the firm belonged to the firm. Admittedly it is an immovable property. The title in the said immovable property cannot pass when its value is more than Rs.100/- unless it is executed on a proper stamp paper and is also duly registered with the sub-Registrar. Nothing of the sort took place. In the absence thereof, it could not be said that the assessee had become the owner of the property. As is clear from the plain language of the Explanation, it is only when the assessee holds a lease right or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by the assesee on the construction of any structure or doing of any work in or in relation to and by way of renovation or extension of or improvement to the building and the expenditure on construction is incurred by the assessee, that assessee would be entitled to depreciation to the extent of any such expenditure incurred. In the instant case, records show that the construction was made by the firm. It is a different thing that the assessee had reimbursed the amount. The construction was not carried out by the assessee himself. Therefore, the explanation also would not come to the aid of the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 26, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Subsidy granted to set up a wind project is a capital receipt. the subsidy cannot be reduced under Explanation 10 to s. 43(1) from the cost of the assets acquired though 100% depreciation is allowed on the cost of the assets. The subsidy is also not assessable either u/s 41(1) or u/s 50

So far as the contention of the AO that the subsidy is liable to be taxed under section 50 of the Act is concerned, we find that in this case neither there was a transfer of any asset from the block nor did the block has ceased to exist. It is not a case of capital gains by way of transfer but it is only a case of capital receipt as observed above as an incentive by the state government to promote the generation of electricity through non conventional sources. In view of the above, in our view, the subsidy received by the assessee is not taxable under section 41(1) neither under section 43(1) and nor under section 50 of the Act

Read more ›