2019 (10) TMI 1519 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of depreciation claim on intangible assets - assessee company had purchased business on slump sale basis - HELD THAT - Issue decided in favour of assessee as relying on own case which has also been upheld by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court 2019 (5) TMI 1208 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT as held specified intangible assets , viz business claims, business information , business records , contracts , employees and of know-how acquired by assessee under slump sale agreement are in the nature of business or commercial right of similar nature specified in section 32(1)(ii) and are accordingly eligible for depreciation - Decided in favour of assessee. Reallocating the personal expenses, foreign travelling expenses, staff welfare expenses, Oil and Petrol expenses and other common expenses between Bilag unit and BEOU in the turnover ratio - HELD THAT - We find that turnover ratio of BEOU is 35.89% as compared to Bilag unit at 64.11%. However, the tribunal in the case of the assessee has restricted the allocation to 10% in assessment year 2004-05 and in A.Y.2005-06 - Therefore, following the consistency in approach, the ratio of allocation applied by the Tribunal is found to be correct. However, the assessee has itself allocated 17.96% in personal expenses, foreign travelling expenses, staff welfare, and oil petrol expenses, hence, the disallowance made on this account is deleted. With regard to other common expenses allocated @15%, the AO is directed to allocate 10% to BEOU, therefore, this issue is partly allowed. In view of these facts and circumstances, this grounds of appeal is partly allowed. Exclusion of interest on others and liability no longer required to be written back while granting deduction under section 10B - HELD THAT - We find that the issue on exclusion of interest income stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of tribunal in the case of Lubrizol Advanced Materials (India) Pvt. 2013 (12) TMI 1590 - ITAT AHMEDABAD wherein it was held that once an income form part of business of undertaking, same would be included in profits of business of undertaking and will be eligible for deduction under section 10B - With regard to liabilities no longer written back, we find that the same pertains to expenses that have been allowed in the previous assessment years as business expenditure, therefore the same represents income from business, hence we are of the considered opinion same is allowable to be included for the purpose of deduction u/s.10B of the Act. In view of these facts, we allow this grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation claim on intangible assets.
2. Reallocation of personal and other common expenses between Bilag unit and BEOU.
3. Exclusion of interest and liabilities no longer required from deduction under section 10B.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Depreciation Claim on Intangible Assets
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,88,45,949/- on intangible assets. The assessee had acquired the Imidachlorpid business from Mitsu Industries for Rs. 27,50,38,000/-, which included various tangible and intangible assets. The AO questioned the valuation and rationale behind the acquisition cost, especially since the book value of the assets in Mitsu Industries was significantly lower at Rs. 7,19,85,974/-. The AO disallowed the depreciation, suspecting the transaction's genuineness and the relationship between the companies.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal referenced its previous decisions for A.Y. 2004-05 and A.Y. 2005-06, where similar grounds were allowed in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal reiterated that the assessee acquired the business as a going concern, including valuable intangible assets like manufacturing know-how, commercial rights, and registrations. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction was a slump sale, recognized by the ITAT and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, and the valuation was done as per Accounting Standard-10 by an independent valuer. The Tribunal concluded that the depreciation on intangible assets was allowable under Section 32 of the Act and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Reallocation of Personal and Other Common Expenses Between Bilag Unit and BEOU
The AO reallocated personal expenses, foreign traveling expenses, staff welfare expenses, oil and petrol expenses, and other common expenses between Bilag unit and BEOU based on turnover ratio, resulting in a total addition of Rs. 2,89,36,690/-. The AO argued that the allocation made by the assessee was not justified and insufficient.

The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's reallocation. However, the assessee contended that in previous years, the Tribunal had restricted such allocations to 10%. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting the turnover ratio but maintaining consistency with prior decisions, directed that the allocation for personal, foreign travel, staff welfare, and oil & petrol expenses should be deleted as the assessee had already allocated 17.96%. For other common expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the allocation to 10%, thus partly allowing the appeal.

Issue 3: Exclusion of Interest and Liabilities No Longer Required from Deduction Under Section 10B
The AO excluded interest income of Rs. 33,437/- and liabilities no longer required of Rs. 41,258/- from the deduction claimed under section 10B, arguing that these incomes did not have an immediate nexus with the manufacturing activity.

The CIT(A) allowed the scrap sale but upheld the exclusion of interest and liabilities written back. The assessee argued that the interest was from loans given to employees and the liabilities written back were previously allowed expenses, thus having a direct nexus with business activities. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in Lubrizol Advanced Materials (India) Pvt. Ltd., held that such incomes, being part of the business of the undertaking, should be included in the profits eligible for deduction under section 10B. The Tribunal thus allowed this ground of appeal in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal granting relief on the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets and the exclusion of certain incomes from section 10B deductions, while partially upholding the reallocation of common expenses.