2013 (10) TMI 771 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on goodwill u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act Held that - Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. 2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT Depreciation on goodwill cannot be denied Decided in favor of Assessee. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act affluent treatment charges - Whether TDS is deductible u/s 194C or u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act Held that - Assessee agreed to deduct 2% tax under section 194C of the Act based upon an understanding reached by all the industrial undertakings in that locality and such understanding was accepted by the Revenue. It may be pointed out that in the subsequent years the Assessing Officer admitted that provisions of section 194J of the Act are not applicable in respect of payments, made by member industrial undertakings to VWEMCL, in the form of affluent treatment charges. On a conscpectus of the matter, impugned payments are not hit by the provisions of section 194J of the Act and consequently disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not in accordance with law Decided in favor of Assessee.

Issues:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill.
2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
3. Credit for advance tax not allowed.
4. Relief by increasing the value of opening stock not pressed.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing, claimed depreciation on goodwill acquired during a business transfer. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, which was upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case and ruled that goodwill is an asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the depreciation claim, following its decision in the appellant's own case for earlier years.

2. The second issue concerns disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO disallowed a payment made by the assessee to a company for technical services due to non-deduction of tax at source. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance based on the nature of services provided. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar disallowance was deleted, emphasizing that the payment was for a standard facility available to all members, not technical services. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for the current year.

3. The third issue involves the appellant seeking credit for advance tax of Rs. 10 lacs paid but not availed due to a bank error in mentioning the Permanent Account Number. The appellant requested the AO to allow the credit after providing evidence of the bank's mistake. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the claim but the AO failed to act on it. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to expeditiously process the application for advance tax credit. As a result, the appellant's appeal on this issue was treated as allowed.

4. The final issue pertains to the appellant's claim for relief by increasing the value of opening stock based on the previous year's closing stock addition under section 145 of the Act. The appellant did not press this issue, leading to its dismissal as not pressed. Overall, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal, addressing the key issues raised and providing appropriate directions and decisions based on legal precedents and factual considerations.

← Previous Next →