Income Tax

Depreciation on goodwill and non compete fee allowed following judgments of Supreme/High Court

Depreciation on goodwill and non compete fee allowed by the Tribunal in view of the binding judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court   

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2953 (2019) (05) ITAT

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties
CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd., (2012) 24 taxmann.com 22
CIT Vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ltd., (2014) 48 taxmann.com 349

The instant case involved appeals filed by the both i.e. the assessee and the Revenue. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the decision of ld CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of depreciation claimed on goodwill was challenged. Whereas, the Revenue was aggrieved by the decision CIT(A) in granting depreciation on non-compete fee.  

The assessee company had purchased a retail business as a going concern for a consideration of Rs. 18.50 crores. The net book value of tangible asset was determined at Rs. 2.18 crores and hence the difference amount of Rs.16.32 crores was treated as goodwill by the assessee.

The above said sum of Rs. 16.32 crores consisted of non-compete fee of Rs. 5 crores. The assessee claimed depreciation on the goodwill amount of Rs. 16.32 croers in the first assessment year and the continued to claim it @ 25% on the opening WDV every year onwards.

However, the Assessing Officer (AO disallowed the same by holding that depreciation is not allowable on goodwill.

Before the AO, the assessee took an alternative plea that the entire amount of Rs. 16.32 crores was not related to goodwill and it also included sale consideration paid towards purchase of trade name. It was also submitted that the seller company was making huge losses in the preceding years and hence no amount can be attributed towards goodwill.

The AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee by holding that the alternative contention of the assessee was on account of change in stand and the same is an afterthought. Accordingly he disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee on good will in all the years under consideration.  

The CIT(A) noticed that the assessee itself had submitted that no amount could be attributed towards Goodwill. Accordingly he, in principle, held the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill was justified. However, following the jurisdictional High Court the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow depreciation on non-compete fee of 5.00 crores in all the years under consideration.

Regarding the the Tribunal noticed that the CIT(A) had followed the binding decision rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court even though the other High Court had taken a different view. In view of that the decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court is binding on all the persons falling within its jurisdiction, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the ld CIT(A) on this issue.

The Tribunal noted that the issue relating to eligibility to claim depreciation on Goodwill has since been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on the amount paid for Goodwill.

The Tribunal observed that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the difference between the cost of an asset and the amount paid for acquiring the same constituted goodwill. In commercial parlance also, the amount paid over and above the value of tangible and intangible rights is considered as goodwill.

The Tribunal opined that merely because the assessee had taken a different stand before the AO to the effect that the difference/excess amount paid by it represented payment made for trademark/trade name would not change the character of payment made by the assessee. In the case, the alternative contention raised before the AO would not disentitle the assessee to claim depreciation on the amount, which was otherwise could be considered as goodwill in its hand.

The Tribunal opined that the tax authorities were not justified in denying the depreciation claimed by the assessee on the amount of goodwill.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

CBDT extends due date of tax audit for FY 2025-26 to 21st October 2026

CBDT has extended the due date for furnishing Return of Income for Assessment Year 2026-27 (FY 2025-26) in respect of…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Denying accumulation of u/s 11(2) merely on grounds of delay in filing Form No. 10 is unsustainable

Denying the accumulation of u/s 11(2) merely on grounds of a procedural delay in filing Form No. 10 is unsustainable…

5 days ago
  • Empanelment

Engagement of 05 Young Professionals CAs at Central Registrar of Cooperative Society

Engagement of 05 Young Professionals CAs in the Office of Central Registrar of Cooperative Society on contractual basis The office…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

AO can’t take two different stands on immunity u/s 270AA(2) for a same transaction

Immunity u/s 270AA(2) in respect of a single transaction can not be denied to one assessee when the penalty was…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT held 2000 gram jewellery reasonable in view of customary practices & CBDT Instruction

ITAT deleted addition u/s 69A towards jewellery found in search in view of Indian traditions, CBDT Instruction and High Court…

7 days ago
  • Income Tax

Documents obtained post search & information obtained from public domain not incriminating material

Documents obtained post search and information obtained from the public domain not incriminating material. Documents obtained by AO post search…

1 week ago