ACIT 14 (2) (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S NUVOCO VISTAS CORPORATION LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LAFARGE INDIA PVT LTD), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that an assessee can claim a legitimate deduction even if it was inadvertently omitted from the original return, and such a claim can be made during assessment or appellate proceedings.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed depreciation on goodwill in assessment proceedings, though not in the original return. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim based on the principle that claims must be made in the return, citing Goetze India Ltd. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.
What were the issues?
Whether depreciation on goodwill can be claimed during assessment proceedings if not claimed in the original return of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders956 citing349 ITR 336 · 2012 · HC
- CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.540 citing348 ITR 302 · 2012 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
O R D E R
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM
The captioned appeals by the revenue arise out of three separate orders, all dated 30.09.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Mumbai for the assessment years 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2005-2006.
The grounds raised by the revenue are identical in all these appeals and relate to the common issue of allowance of assessee’s claim of depreciation on goodwill.
Briefly the facts are, the assessee, earlier known as Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in manufacture and sale of cement and allied products. Though, in the return of income filed for assessment year 2001-02 the assessee did not claim any depreciation on goodwill, however, in course of assessment proceeding, the assess filed a revised computation claiming depreciation. The Assessing Officer, though, agreed that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Smif Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Taj Sat Air Catering Ltd. vs. CIT (211 Taxmann 84). However, he disallowed assessee’s claim on the ground that the assessee has not made such claim in the return of income. While doing so, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (2006) 84 ITR 323 (SC). The Assessing Officer followed up with of similar disallowance in assessment years 2003-04 and 2005-06. The assessee contested the disallowance of depreciation before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee’s claim by holding that the assessee can make a claim of deduction in course of assessment proceedings. In this context he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336).
We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. On a reading of the observations of the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, it is very much clear that he does not deny the fact that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on goodwill in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Smif Securities Ltd.(supra). The only reason for disallowance is, the assessee has not claimed such deduction in the return of income. In fact, the grounds raised
by the revenue are also to the similar effect. Now, it is fairly well settled even if the assessee by mistake or inadvertently has not claimed a legitimate deduction in 3 MUM/2019 Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2003-04 & 2005-06 the return of income, which is otherwise available, assessee can claim such deduction not only in course of assessment proceedings but even before the appellate authority. The decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra) relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) clearly lays down such proposition. Therefore, keeping in view the settled legal position on the issue, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, grounds are dismissed.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- DCIT, New Delhi vs M/S. Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd…Delhi10 Sept 2020Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the issues concerning foreign exchange loss and depreciation on goodwill had been decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for previous assessment years. The de...
- DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New…Delhi28 Aug 2020Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal followed its own previous decision for AY 2010-11, which had allowed depreciation on goodwill and marked-to-market foreign exchange loss. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
- DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai vs Dhl Lemuir Logistics P.Ltd, MumbaiMumbai24 Aug 2016Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority can entertain a claim not made in the original or revised return if facts are on record. It also confirmed that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation und...
- The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Suzlon Energy Ltd., AhmedabadAhmedabad12 Nov 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that goodwill created as a result of amalgamation is a depreciable asset, as it came into existence due to the amalgamation itself, not a transfer of an existing asset. The Tribunal also noted that amen...
- Aditya Birla Finance Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…Mumbai8 Jul 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal addressed several grounds. For the issue of interest on NPAs, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is an NBFC and has to follow RBI directives. It was held that income not recognized in books as per RBI dire...
More judgments on Section 32
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Doms Industries Ltd, Valsad vs PCIT, ValsadITA 595/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aeon Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(1)…ITA 2481/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 9186/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 9185/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026