2017 (10) TMI 373 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation on goodwill - goodwill expanded at the time of amalgamation of the companies - claim denied as claim was fictitious and the goodwill has been accounted as a balancing factor in the hands of the assessee without acquisition of an intangible asset as contemplated under Section 32 of the Act - Held that - With respect to the claim of depreciation, the decision of Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. 2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT would squarely apply. There is no material referred to by the Assessing Officer to hold that the claim of depreciation was fictitious. If we read his entire expression in this respect, he seems to be suggesting that being an intangible asset acquisition thereof would not qualify for depreciation. If that be so, the view of the Assessing Officer was opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra). On the other hand, if the observations of the Assessing Officer can be seen as his findings that the claim itself was baseless, there was no discussion or reference to any material to enable him to come to such a conclusion. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of foreign expenses
2. Treatment of expenses on registration of trademark as capital expenses
3. Non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act
4. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees
5. Allowance of depreciation on goodwill
6. Adjudication of depreciation on goodwill not claimed in the original return
7. Jurisdiction of ITAT in adjudicating fresh/additional grounds
8. Remittance of matter to lower authorities for inquiry into goodwill generation

Analysis:

1. The Revenue appealed against the ITAT judgment, raising questions on various disallowances and additions. Questions (A) to (D) were not considered as similar issues were dismissed in a previous assessment year. Questions (E) to (I) pertained to the assessee's claim of depreciation on goodwill.

2. The assessee claimed depreciation on goodwill in the revised computation for the assessment year 2010-11, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in a relevant case. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, stating it was not in the original return and deemed the claim fictitious.

3. The CIT(A) and Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the depreciation claim on goodwill based on legal precedents. The Tribunal cited decisions supporting the allowance of additional claims without revising the return and the validity of depreciation on acquired goodwill.

4. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the jurisdiction of appellate authorities to entertain new grounds or claims. It highlighted the importance of considering claims not raised initially if supported by facts on record, ensuring a fair assessment of real income.

5. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision on the depreciation claim, as the Assessing Officer's objections lacked substantive evidence or legal basis. The judgment reaffirmed the applicability of legal precedents supporting depreciation on acquired goodwill.

6. Ultimately, the tax appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee regarding the depreciation claim on goodwill. The Court emphasized adherence to legal principles and the need for substantiated objections when disallowing legitimate claims in income tax assessments.