2018 (6) TMI 1658 - AT - Income Tax

Order of CIT-A u/s.250(6) - whether the order passed by the CIT(A) in treating the balancing figure at the time of amalgamation as goodwill and allowing the depreciation on the same is sustainable in the eye of law? - HELD THAT - We have perused relevant materials on record. We have also gone through the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court wherein the issue has been decided in favour of assessee in assessee s own case for AYs 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue and upheld grant of depreciation on goodwill - decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the order treating the balancing figure at the time of amalgamation as goodwill and allowing depreciation on the same is sustainable in the eye of law.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this appeal was whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) treating the balancing figure at the time of amalgamation as goodwill and allowing depreciation on it was sustainable. The assessee-company claimed depreciation on goodwill arising from the amalgamation of two companies. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim, stating the cost of acquisition of goodwill was NIL. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, citing judicial authorities that goodwill is a capital asset eligible for depreciation. The Commissioner observed that the excess of liabilities over assets was treated as goodwill. The Commissioner relied on judgments, including one from the Supreme Court, and concluded that the appellant was eligible for depreciation on goodwill. The Revenue challenged this decision.

2. During the appeal hearing, the Revenue representative relied on the AO's order, while the appellant's representative referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years. The Tribunal examined the relevant materials, including the High Court's decision, which favored the assessee. The High Court observed that the AO's view on depreciation was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal also referenced a previous decision in the assessee's case where depreciation on goodwill was upheld. Considering these precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision to allow the depreciation claim on goodwill. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the consistent legal position established by various judgments and orders, including those from the High Court and the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal found that the issue of depreciation on goodwill had been extensively examined in the assessee's case, with multiple favorable decisions. By following the precedent set by previous judgments and the High Court's decision, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order allowing the depreciation claim on goodwill. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on goodwill, and hence, dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in determining the treatment of goodwill and the eligibility for depreciation, as established through a series of judicial decisions and precedents.