9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1217 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on Goodwill / Non-Compete Fee - whether capital in nature? - Held that - Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ingersoll Rand International Ind Ltd.(2014 (6) TMI 934 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) and of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in allowing the assessee s claim for depreciation on the additional amount paid by the assessee. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT (Appeals) was right in law in applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ltd. 2. Whether the CIT (Appeals) was right in allowing depreciation on the additional amount paid by the assessee by treating it as either goodwill or non-compete fee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of the Ratio of Judgment in CIT vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ltd.: The Revenue challenged the CIT (Appeals)’s decision to apply the ratio of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd. The Revenue contended that the facts of the instant case were different and should not have been applied. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Appeals) followed the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years (2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13), which had applied the same High Court decision. The Tribunal found no fault in the CIT (Appeals)’s application of the Karnataka High Court’s decision, as it was in line with the precedent set in the assessee’s earlier cases. 2. Allowing Depreciation on Goodwill/Non-Compete Fee: The Revenue also contested the CIT (Appeals)’s decision to allow depreciation on the additional amount paid by the assessee, treating it as either goodwill or non-compete fee. The Revenue argued that the additional payment was in the nature of capital expenditure towards easing out competition and should follow the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Systems vs. CIT. The Tribunal examined the issue, noting that the co-ordinate benches in the assessee's own case for previous years had consistently allowed depreciation on the additional amount paid by treating it as goodwill. These decisions were based on the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in the case of Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd., which held that non-compete fees qualify as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal further analyzed the facts and found that the rights acquired by the assessee through the non-compete agreement could be transferred to any other person, aligning with the rationale of the Karnataka High Court’s judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdictional High Court’s decision (Karnataka High Court) takes precedence over the Delhi High Court’s decision, making the latter irrelevant in this context. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT (Appeals) correctly allowed the depreciation on the additional amount paid by the assessee, whether it was considered goodwill or non-compete fee. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s grounds on this issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)’s order, allowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on the additional amount paid, treating it as either goodwill or non-compete fee. The Revenue’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was dismissed. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 5th October 2018.
|
