Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT

255 ITR 26High Court2002#2015 most cited

What is Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT authority for?

Depreciation is allowable on goodwill acquired through the slump sale of a business. When an assessee claims depreciation on the enhanced cost of an asset supported by a registered valuer's report, tax authorities must produce countervailing evidence, such as a departmental valuation report, to challenge it, rather than simply disregarding the expert opinion.

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v CIT · 255 ITR 26 · depreciation on goodwill · slump sale · Section 32 Income-tax Act · enhanced cost · valuation report · burden of proof · intangible asset depreciation · acquisition of business · registered valuer report

Also reported as

125 Taxmann 59

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 11UA(2)Section 143(3) of the Income-tax ActSection 144BSection 144C(13)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 43(6)(c)section 49business transfer agreementsection 43(6)substance over formsection 55section 43(1)transferee companygoing concernsection 32(2)section 50b

Judgments citing Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT

Waman Hari Pethe Sons Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 10 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2730/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2730/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Waman Hari Pethe Sons बिाम/ Dcit 10(3),Mumbai Private Ltd,. 110, Vikas Paradise, V. Lbs Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai 400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacw9453A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Tikekar Shri Rahul Kelkar Revenue By : Shri Vidhyadhar (Sr.Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TikekarFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)

…uation of the two shops. The assessee relied upon the said opinion dated 12.08.2010 of the Advocate of the Supreme Court vide filing its return of income filed on 29.09.2011. The assessee relied upon decision in the case of Ashwin Vanspati Industries v. CIT , 255 ITR 26(Guj.) and decision in the case of CIT v. Hotel Sabar P. Ltd. 264 ITR 381(Guj.). It was submitted that the said claim of excess depreciation was withdrawn during assessment proceedings. Since the time had expired for filing revised return of income u/s. 139(5) , the assessee withdrew the claim for excess depreciation during the course of assessment…

Gita Wind Energy, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 751/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 & 751/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Gita Wind Energy, The Income Tax Officer, 4/7, Thiru Vi Ka Road, V. Business Ward 1(2) / Non- Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Corporate Ward 1(2), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aajfg 7091 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 43(1)

…Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Western Maharashtra Flourine Chemical Industries v. JCIT (2006) 7 SOT 572 and also the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT 92002) 255 ITR 26. 6. On the contrary, Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee admittedly purchased four windmills from M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. during the assessment year 2011-12. According to the Ld. D.R., the income declared from the windmills was ₹49.20 lakhs before depreciation. In fact, M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. ha…

Gita Wind Energy, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 750/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 & 751/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Gita Wind Energy, The Income Tax Officer, 4/7, Thiru Vi Ka Road, V. Business Ward 1(2) / Non- Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Corporate Ward 1(2), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aajfg 7091 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 43(1)

…Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Western Maharashtra Flourine Chemical Industries v. JCIT (2006) 7 SOT 572 and also the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT 92002) 255 ITR 26. 6. On the contrary, Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee admittedly purchased four windmills from M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. during the assessment year 2011-12. According to the Ld. D.R., the income declared from the windmills was ₹49.20 lakhs before depreciation. In fact, M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. ha…

M/S. Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6331/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(1)Section 43(1)

…g under the Companies Act, the value as adopted cannot otherwise be said to be unreasonable. 16. In arriving at the above conclusion, we find support from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT reported in 255 ITR 26 wherein their Lordships had specifically held “The valuation report is by a registered valuer Neither in the assessment order nor in the Tribunal’s order is there any whisper that the valuation report by the registered valuer is incorrect in any manner whatsoever. Once there is a report by the registered valuer it is encumbent upon the authority t…

Huntsman International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5637/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S.Huntsman International (India) Private Limited, B-Wing, Lighthall, Hiranandani Business Park, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai 400 072 Pan: Aaach9149J ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. ..... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri S.N.SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 32Section 32(1)(iii)

…ned the valuation report for its own specific purpose i.e. to record the individual value of the assets acquired on payment of slump sale consi-deration,that it was not a case of revaluation of the assets.The assessee referred to the case of Ashwin Vanaspati (255 ITR 26) in its support. In its support the assessee furnished valuation report dt.19.1.2007 prepared by M.M. Ravji & Co.CA. To enquire into the genuineness of the claim of the assessee,the AO called for information from DDCL and CIBA India under sec.131 of the Act.He directed them to furnish details of written down value (WDV)of all the blocks of assets…

M/S Pik Pen Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-8(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4437/MUM/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 32Section 43(1)

…on, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Unimed Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT [2000] 73 ITD 150 (Ahd.) and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries vs. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 26 (Guj). These decisions suggest for accepting the valuation report furnished by the assessee and depreciation should be granted on the enhanced cost of the asset. 9. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the fact that the CIT (A) erroneously invoked the 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, when such proviso came into st…

DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai vs. Cncs Facility Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both the years under consideration are dismissed

ITA 3721/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian (DR)
Section 47

…ion adopted by the 6 M/s. CNCS Facility Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 3720 & 3721/Mum/2013 assessee, this rules out the applicability of Explanation-3 to Sec. 43 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries Vs CIT 255 ITR 26 has made the following observations: “The valuation report is by a registered valuer. Neither in the assessment order nor in the Tribunal’s order is there any whisper that the valuation report by the registered valuer is incorrect in any manner whatsoever. Once there is a report by the registered valuer it is encumbent upon the authority to dislo…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Cncs Facility Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both the years under consideration are dismissed

ITA 3720/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian (DR)
Section 47

…ion adopted by the 6 M/s. CNCS Facility Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 3720 & 3721/Mum/2013 assessee, this rules out the applicability of Explanation-3 to Sec. 43 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries Vs CIT 255 ITR 26 has made the following observations: “The valuation report is by a registered valuer. Neither in the assessment order nor in the Tribunal’s order is there any whisper that the valuation report by the registered valuer is incorrect in any manner whatsoever. Once there is a report by the registered valuer it is encumbent upon the authority to dislo…

M/S. Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5623/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm It(Tp)A No. 5623/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Continental Device India Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax C-120, Naraina Industrial Area, Circle-3(1), New Delhi-110028 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc1835E Assessee By : Sh. R. K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ravi Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…g under the Companies Act, the value as adopted cannot otherwise be said to be unreasonable. 16. In arriving at the above conclusion, we find support from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT reported in 255 ITR 26 wherein their Lordships had specifically held “The valuation report is by a registered valuer Neither in the assessment IT(TP)A No. 5623/Del/2012 14 Continental Device India Ltd. order nor in the Tribunal’s order is there any whisper that the valuation report by the registered valuer is incorrect in any manner whatsoever. Once there is a report…

Pik Pen P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, 9 appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7230/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2015AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhi.T.A. No.7230/M/2012 (Assessment Year: 1999-2000)

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivram, ShriFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt
Section 32Section 43(1)

…on, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Unimed Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT [2000] 73 ITD 150 (Ahd.) and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries vs. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 26 (Guj). These decisions suggest for accepting the valuation report furnished by the assessee and depreciation should be granted on the enhanced cost of the asset. 9. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the fact that the CIT (A) erroneously invoked the 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, when such proviso came into sta…

M/S. Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…, the AO/CIT(A) were not justified in ignoring the same and adopting the W.D.V. in the books of Deltron Ltd. as the actual cost under section 43(1) of the I.T. Act read with explanation 3. A direct judgment on this issue is Ashwin Vanaspati Industries vs. CIT 255 ITR 26 (Guj). (Copy enclosed) 3 The allegation of the AO that assessee did not make disclosure of this transaction and it came to be probed by him is also factually incorrect. There is a disclosure in Director’s report that assessee has acquired business of Deltron Ltd. as a going concern, PB page 2. Similarly in Schedule T of Balance sheet being notes…

M/S Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1319/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…, the AO/CIT(A) were not justified in ignoring the same and adopting the W.D.V. in the books of Deltron Ltd. as the actual cost under section 43(1) of the I.T. Act read with explanation 3. A direct judgment on this issue is Ashwin Vanaspati Industries vs. CIT 255 ITR 26 (Guj). (Copy enclosed) 3 The allegation of the AO that assessee did not make disclosure of this transaction and it came to be probed by him is also factually incorrect. There is a disclosure in Director’s report that assessee has acquired business of Deltron Ltd. as a going concern, PB page 2. Similarly in Schedule T of Balance sheet being notes…

M/S Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5656/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…, the AO/CIT(A) were not justified in ignoring the same and adopting the W.D.V. in the books of Deltron Ltd. as the actual cost under section 43(1) of the I.T. Act read with explanation 3. A direct judgment on this issue is Ashwin Vanaspati Industries vs. CIT 255 ITR 26 (Guj). (Copy enclosed) 3 The allegation of the AO that assessee did not make disclosure of this transaction and it came to be probed by him is also factually incorrect. There is a disclosure in Director’s report that assessee has acquired business of Deltron Ltd. as a going concern, PB page 2. Similarly in Schedule T of Balance sheet being notes…

M/S Continental Device India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 134/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…, the AO/CIT(A) were not justified in ignoring the same and adopting the W.D.V. in the books of Deltron Ltd. as the actual cost under section 43(1) of the I.T. Act read with explanation 3. A direct judgment on this issue is Ashwin Vanaspati Industries vs. CIT 255 ITR 26 (Guj). (Copy enclosed) 3 The allegation of the AO that assessee did not make disclosure of this transaction and it came to be probed by him is also factually incorrect. There is a disclosure in Director’s report that assessee has acquired business of Deltron Ltd. as a going concern, PB page 2. Similarly in Schedule T of Balance sheet being notes…

ACIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai vs. Suyash Labaoratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both the years under consideration are dismissed

ITA 4004/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4003 & 4004/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2005-06 & 2006-07 The Dcit-7(2), M/S. Suyash Laboratories बनाम/ M.K. Road, Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Ground Floor, Mahendra Industrial Estate, Road No. 29, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 029 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaeca 7424H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Premanand J ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vijay Mehta

For Appellant: Shri Premanand JFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 147Section 2(47)Section 43(6)Section 47

…d assets nor the AO has disputed the valuation adopted by the assessee, this rules out the applicability of 6 ITA. Nos.4003 & 4004/M/2012 Explanation-3 to Sec. 43 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries Vs CIT 255 ITR 26 has made the following observations: “The valuation report is by a registered valuer. Neither in the assessment order nor in the Tribunal’s order is there any whisper that the valuation report by the registered valuer is incorrect in any manner whatsoever. Once there is a report by the registered valuer it is encumbent upon the authority to dislo…

ACIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai vs. Suyash Labaoratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both the years under consideration are dismissed

ITA 4003/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4003 & 4004/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2005-06 & 2006-07 The Dcit-7(2), M/S. Suyash Laboratories बनाम/ M.K. Road, Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Ground Floor, Mahendra Industrial Estate, Road No. 29, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 029 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaeca 7424H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Premanand J ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vijay Mehta

For Appellant: Shri Premanand JFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 147Section 2(47)Section 43(6)Section 47

…d assets nor the AO has disputed the valuation adopted by the assessee, this rules out the applicability of 6 ITA. Nos.4003 & 4004/M/2012 Explanation-3 to Sec. 43 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ashwin Vanaspati Industries Vs CIT 255 ITR 26 has made the following observations: “The valuation report is by a registered valuer. Neither in the assessment order nor in the Tribunal’s order is there any whisper that the valuation report by the registered valuer is incorrect in any manner whatsoever. Once there is a report by the registered valuer it is encumbent upon the authority to dislo…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Page Industries Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 1231/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shankar Prasad,JCITFor Respondent: Shri H.N.Khincha, CA
Section 80J

…ting the value furnished by the assessee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions; 1. Nirma Industries (P)LTd Vs DCIT (2013) Taxmann.com 89 (Ahmd.-Trib) 2. Ashwin Vanaspati Industries Vs CIT(2002) 125 Taxman.59(Guj.) (2002) 255 ITR 26 (Guj.) (2002) 174 CTR 90(GUj.) 3. ACUIT Vs Vinod Kumar Agarwal(2002) 82 ITD 1 (Hyd/(2002) 77 TTJ 943(Hyd.) 14 ITA Nos.1231 to 1233(Bang)2014 13. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the w.d.v. in the books of the seller is a tangible material before the AO on the basis on which the AO has determined the actual cost of the asset to…