{"id":2573,"date":"2011-01-17T21:33:51","date_gmt":"2011-01-17T16:03:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=2573"},"modified":"2011-01-17T21:33:51","modified_gmt":"2011-01-17T16:03:51","slug":"cit-vs-hindustan-coca-cola-beverages-pvt-ltd-delhi-high-court-goodwill-is-an-intangible-asset-us-321ii-eligible-for-depreciation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-hindustan-coca-cola-beverages-pvt-ltd-delhi-high-court-goodwill-is-an-intangible-asset-us-321ii-eligible-for-depreciation\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=331\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=331&varname2=hindustan_coca_depreciation_goodwill.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (hindustan_coca_depreciation_goodwill.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>&#8220;Goodwill&#8221; is an &#8220;intangible asset&#8221; u\/s 32(1)(ii) &#038; eligible for depreciation<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee engaged in manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages claimed <strong>depreciation<\/strong> u\/s 32 on &#8220;<strong>goodwill<\/strong>&#8221; being the amounts paid to bottlers for marketing and trading reputation, trading style and name, territory know-how etc. The AO, after due inquiry, allowed the assessee&#8217;s claim u\/s 143(3). <em>The CIT revised the assessment u\/s 263 on the ground that <strong>goodwill was not an &#8220;intangible asset&#8221;<\/strong> as defined in s. 32(1)(ii) and directed the AO to withdraw depreciation<\/em>. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal {132 TTJ 602 (Del)} upheld the assessee&#8217;s claim. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal: <\/p>\n<p>(i) S. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO if it is not &#8220;prejudicial to the interests of the revenue&#8221;. <strong>Every loss of revenue as a consequence of the AO&#8217;s order cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue<\/strong>. E.g. when the AO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of Revenue; or <strong><em>where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree<\/em><\/strong>, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law (<strong>Malabar Industrial Co<\/strong> 243 ITR 83 (SC) followed);<\/p>\n<p>(ii) On facts, as the assessee had made full disclosure of the facts of the claim and the AO had examined the claim and taken a view, the assessment order cannot be termed &#8220;erroneous &#038; prejudicial to the interests of the revenue&#8221;;<\/p>\n<p>(iii) On merits, s. 32(1)(ii) allows depreciation in respect of know-how, patent, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. <strong>The term &#8220;commercial rights&#8221; are such rights which are obtained for effectively carrying on business and commerce<\/strong>. &#8220;Commerce&#8221; is a wide term which encompasses many a facet. Accordingly,<strong> <em>any right obtained for carrying on business with effectiveness comes within the sweep of meaning of &#8220;intangible asset&#8221;<\/em><\/strong>. <strong>Goodwill, being the positive reputation built by a person over a period of time is of &#8220;similar nature&#8221; as the other items enumerated in the definition of &#8220;intangible assets<\/strong>. <\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nSee also <strong>B. Ravendran Pillai<\/strong> 47 DTR 81 (Ker) &#038; <strong>Kotak Forex Brokerage<\/strong> 131 TTJ 404 (Mum) where a <strong><em>favourable view<\/em><\/strong> was taken &#038; <strong>Borker Packaging<\/strong> 40 DTR 29 (Panaji) &#038; <strong>Madular Infoyech<\/strong> 131 TTJ 243 (Pune) where a <strong><em>contrary view<\/em><\/strong> was taken. The issue is pending before the Special Bench in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/special_bench_matters.php\">CLC &#038; Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On merits, s. 32(1)(ii) allows depreciation in respect of know-how, patent, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. The term &#8220;commercial rights&#8221; are such rights which are obtained for effectively carrying on business and commerce. &#8220;Commerce&#8221; is a wide term which encompasses many a facet. Accordingly,<strong> <em>any right obtained for carrying on business with effectiveness comes within the sweep of meaning of &#8220;intangible asset&#8221;<\/em><\/strong>. <strong>Goodwill, being the positive reputation built by a person over a period of time is of &#8220;similar nature&#8221; as the other items enumerated in the definition of &#8220;intangible assets<\/strong><\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-hindustan-coca-cola-beverages-pvt-ltd-delhi-high-court-goodwill-is-an-intangible-asset-us-321ii-eligible-for-depreciation\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}