Home ›

Search Results For: 32

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: 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: March 15, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 24, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: The primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that the assessee is guilty of concealment/ furnishing inaccurate particulars. Making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars by any stretch of imagination. Wrong claim of depreciation by crediting capital subsidy to reserves instead of reducing from actual cost/ WDV does not attract s. 271(1)(c) penalty

The expression “has concealed the particulars of income” and “has furnished inaccurate particulars of income” have not been defined either in sec. 271(l)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not identical in details although they may lead to same effect, namely, keeping of a certain portion of income. The former is direct and the later may be indirect in its execution. The word “conceal” is derived from the Latin word “concolare” which implies to hide. In the present appeal, even if a excess depreciation has been claimed by the assessee on the basis of the Companies Act does not mean that the assessee had hidden something, therefore, even if a wrong claim is made, automatically, does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Concealment refers to a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. The primary burden of proof is on the Revenue, before a penalty is imposed u/s 271(l)(c) because by no stretch of imagination, making a incorrect claim, does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and the judicial pronouncements, that too from the Hon’ble Apex Court, no penalty is leviable especially when there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return is erroneous or incorrect, therefore, mere making a excess claim in itself does not invite imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) because the same cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

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: 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 — 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 17, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32/ 43(6): Even assets installed in a discontinued business are eligible for depreciation as part of 'block of assets'

Once the concept of block of assets was brought into effect from assessment year 1989-90 onwards then the aggregate of written down value of all the assets in the block at the beginning of the previous year along with additions made to the assets in the subject Assessment Year depreciation is allowable. The individual asset loses its identity for purposes of depreciation and the user test is to be satisfied at the time the purchased Machinery becomes a part of the block of assets for the first time

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 15, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1995-96
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32: Even prior to the insertion of "intangible assets" in s. 32, intellectual property rights such as trademarks, copyrights and know-how constitute "plant" for purposes of depreciation. The department is not entitled to rewrite the terms of a commercial agreement

The question is, would intellectual property such as trademarks, copyrights and know-how come within the definition of ‘plant’ in the ‘sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it’? In our opinion, this must be answered in the affirmative for the reason that there can be no doubt that for the purposes of a large business, control over intellectual property rights such as brand name, trademark etc. are absolutely necessary. Moreover, the acquisition of such rights and know-how is acquisition of a capital nature, more particularly in the case of the Assessee. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that so far as the Assessee is concerned, the trademarks, copyrights and know-how acquired by it would come within the definition of ‘plant’ being commercially necessary and essential as understood by those dealing with direct taxes

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32: The "functional" test has to be applied to determine whether an asset is "plant". Even a pond designed for rearing prawns can be "plant"

In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anand Theatres 224 ITR 192 it was held that except in exceptional cases, the building in which the plant is situated must be distinguished from the plant and that, therefore, the assessee’s generating station building was not to be treated as a plant for the purposes of investment allowance. It is difficult to read the judgment in the case of Anand Theatres so broadly. The question before the court was whether a building that was used as a hotel or a cinema theatre could be given depreciation on the basis that it was a “plant” and it was in relation to that question that the court considered a host of authorities of this country and England and came to the conclusion that a building which was used as a hotel or cinema theatre could not be given depreciation on the basis that it was a plant

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32: Customs duty paid in a later year can be capitalized in the year the obligation to pay the duty arose. Question whether it can be capitalized in year of import of the goods left open

The central question is whether the obligation to pay customs duty related back to the actual date of payment of customs duty or the date of import of the equipment and whether the said customs duty paid in the previous year relevant to the AY in question can be capitalized with reference to an earlier year. In Funskool (India) Limited (2007) 294 ITR 642 (Mad) the question was whether depreciation could be claimed on the additional customs duty paid in the previous year relevant to the AY in question although such customs duty was in respect of machinery that was imported and installed in an earlier year. That question was answered in the affirmative by the Madras High Court by following the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Atlas Radio and Electronics P. Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1994) 207 ITR 329 (Guj) in which it was held that even though the sales tax was paid in a subsequent year, the liability to pay sales tax arose in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in which the machinery was purchased.

Read more ›