2019 (7) TMI 25 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on Goodwill - depreciation on Customer Relationship (CR) Vendor Relationship (VR) considering them to fall under Any other business or commercial rights of similar nature - treatment as asset under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) - impact of non claiming in return of income - HELD THAT - As decided in SMIFS SECURITIES LTD. 2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT Explanation 3 states that the expression 'asset' shall mean an intangible asset, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading the words 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' in clause (b) of Explanation 3 indicates that goodwill would fall under the expression 'any other business or commercial right of a similar nature'. The principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply while interpreting the said expression which finds place in Explanation 3(b). In the circumstances, we are of the view that 'Goodwill' is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Allowability of depreciation on intangible assets
- Allowability of depreciation on goodwill
- Interpretation of relevant legal provisions

Analysis:

Allowability of depreciation on intangible assets:
The revenue challenged the allowance of depreciation on intangible assets by the CIT(A). The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the case of DCIT Vs. V.F. Arvind Brands Pvt. Ltd. where it was held that expenses incurred for the business cannot be disallowed merely on technical grounds. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation on the same intangible assets in the preceding year. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the Tribunal emphasized that if expenses are incurred for the business, they must be allowed under the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

Allowability of depreciation on goodwill:
The revenue contested the allowance of depreciation on goodwill by the CIT(A) without considering a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal, however, relied on the same Supreme Court judgment to support the allowance of depreciation on goodwill. It highlighted that the Assessing Officer had concluded that no amount was paid for goodwill, but the CIT(A) had upheld the claim based on the amalgamation process and increase in market worth. The Tribunal, following the precedent, held that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this issue as well.

Interpretation of relevant legal provisions:
The Tribunal extensively analyzed the legal provisions and previous judgments to determine the eligibility of the assessee for depreciation on both intangible assets and goodwill. By referencing specific paragraphs from previous orders and legal principles, the Tribunal justified its decision to uphold the CIT(A)'s rulings. The Tribunal's reliance on precedent and legal interpretations played a crucial role in dismissing the revenue's appeal and affirming the allowance of depreciation on both intangible assets and goodwill.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT BANGALORE upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the allowance of depreciation on intangible assets and goodwill, citing relevant legal provisions and previous judgments to support its findings. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on legal principles led to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal on both issues.