9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. However, its appeal against the assessment order for the assessment year 2016-17 is currently pending before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that it becomes relevant to examine whether any intangible asset arises in the hands of the assessee pursuant to the amalgamation and whether on that intangible asset depreciation is allowable under section 32 of the Act. Since the appeal of the assessee against the disallowance of depreciation on aforesaid alleged intangible assets in the first year itself is currently pending before the learned CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication - Grounds raised in assessee s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. Refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ( DDT ) paid by the assessee - assessee raised this issue by way of additional ground and submitted that the beneficial rate on dividends as provided in Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ) is to be applied for the purpose of DDT, as the DTAA override the provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- During the hearing, the learned Representative appearing for the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customer relations 3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation of INR 7,42,04,775 on customer relations. 3.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the contention of the Assessing Officer that the Appellant has not incurred any cost for acquiring customer relations in the scheme of merger. 4. Upholding the adjustments made under section 143(1) of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding that the addition of INR 6,960 made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore ('CPC') in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, which was considered by the AO while assessing the total income of the Appellant, is not beyond the scope of adjustments permitted under section 143(1)(a) of the Act 5. Addition of INR 6,960 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of INR 6,960 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act should not have been made. 6. Refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, and personal care products. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29/11/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 286,62,42,450, and a revised return of income was filed on 30/08/2018 declaring the same income. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, on perusal of profit and loss account of the assessee, it was observed that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 20,82,45,018 (Rs. 12,66,12,592 @ 25% on goodwill value of Rs. 50,64,50,368, Rs. 74,27,651 @25% on distribution network of Rs. 2,97,10,603, Rs. 7,42,04,775 @25% on customer relations of Rs. 29,68,19,100). Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish a note on eligibility for claiming depreciation on the value of such intangible assets along with supporting documents. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that pursuant to the amalgamation of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Ltd ( RHIPL ) with the assessee, all the assets and liabilities of RHIPL were transferred to the assessee. The difference between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, Rohm and Hass Company, USA along with all its subsidiaries were acquired by the Dow Chemical Company, USA. As part of the global legal entity rationalisation project of the Dow group, to rationalise the number of legal entities and to drive synergies in operation, it was proposed to merge RHIPL, the Indian subsidiary of Rohm and Hass Company, USA, with the assessee. Accordingly, the scheme of amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Companies Act, 2013 was approved from the appointed date, i.e. 01/04/2015, by the Hon ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 22/02/2016. Pursuant to the amalgamation, all the assets and liabilities of RHIPL (i.e. Transferor Company) were transferred to the assessee. The assessee recorded the amalgamation as per Purchase Method prescribed under Accounting Standard-14. Accordingly, the assets and liabilities transferred have been recorded at their fair value, as determined by an independent valuer and taken on record by the Board of Directors of the assessee. The difference bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly pending before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that it becomes relevant to examine whether any intangible asset arises in the hands of the assessee pursuant to the amalgamation and whether on that intangible asset depreciation is allowable under section 32 of the Act. Since the appeal of the assessee against the disallowance of depreciation on aforesaid alleged intangible assets in the first year itself is currently pending before the learned CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after examination of the aspects as highlighted above. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue is set aside, and grounds no. 1-3, raised in assessee s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Grounds No. 4-5 was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 11. The issue arising in ground No. 6, raised in assessee s appeal, is pertaining to the refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax ( DDT ) paid by the assessee. 12. In appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
