KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6579/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the excess of slump sale consideration over identifiable tangible assets represents goodwill or commercial rights, and depreciation thereon is allowable. The valuation of tangible assets by the Departmental Valuation Officer shall be adopted.

What were the facts?

The assessee acquired a hotel undertaking on a slump sale basis and claimed depreciation on the assets. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation exceeding the written down value of the assets in the transferor's books, attributing the excess consideration to land.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation can be claimed on the excess consideration allocated to goodwill/commercial rights in a slump sale, and whether the written down value of the transferor is the sole basis for the cost of depreciable assets in the hands of the transferee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(ii),Section 43(1),Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta
For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. DR
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 30.01.2026

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 6580/Mum/2025
ITA No. 6578/Mum/2025
ITA No. 6579/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These three appeals are filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] arising out of assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. Since the issues involved in all the three appeals are identical and arise out of a common set of facts, they were heard together and a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 32(1)(ii)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →