Borkar Packaging (P.) Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

131 TTJ 99Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#9364 most cited

What is Borkar Packaging (P.) Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Depreciation on goodwill, if purchased, is not eligible for depreciation as it represents the difference between the purchase consideration and the net asset value. However, this ruling may no longer be considered good law post the Supreme Court decision in Smifs Securities Ltd.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Borkar Packaging · ACIT · 131 TTJ 99 · depreciation on goodwill · not eligible for depreciation · purchase consideration · net asset value · ITAT Panaji · Smifs Securities Ltd

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(18)Section 2(1B)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Issues it is cited on

section 32(2)section 31(1)section 170section 50bbusiness transfer agreementsection 43(6)depreciation on goodwillsection 43(6)(c)resulting companysection 49section 47section 55(2)

Judgments citing Borkar Packaging (P.) Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 402/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

…ober, 2023. The ld. D.R. also relied upon following decision of the Tribunal: (a) M/s. Dosti Realty Ltd. in ITA No. 2043/Mum/2022 order dated 13- 04-2023 (b) Pfizer Ltd. in ITA 2108/Mum/2018 order dated 22-09-2023 (c) Borkar Packing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panji) 6. The ld. A.R. submitted that the scheme of arrangement was entered into between McFills Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (transferor company) and MR Organosys Pvt. ltd. (transferee company). As per the said scheme, the transferor company was amalgamated with transferee company w.e.f. 01-04- 2016. Name of a transferee company was changed McFills En…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 401/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

…ober, 2023. The ld. D.R. also relied upon following decision of the Tribunal: (a) M/s. Dosti Realty Ltd. in ITA No. 2043/Mum/2022 order dated 13- 04-2023 (b) Pfizer Ltd. in ITA 2108/Mum/2018 order dated 22-09-2023 (c) Borkar Packing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panji) 6. The ld. A.R. submitted that the scheme of arrangement was entered into between McFills Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (transferor company) and MR Organosys Pvt. ltd. (transferee company). As per the said scheme, the transferor company was amalgamated with transferee company w.e.f. 01-04- 2016. Name of a transferee company was changed McFills En…

Rexel India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 981/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025
Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

…ent case. 26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain judicial pronouncements, which have been dealt with hereunder: - (a) We find that the decision in Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2010] [2010] 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji) was rendered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra), and therefore the same is no longer a good law. (b) From the perusal of the paragraph of the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Pfizer Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 2108 (Mum.) of 2018, d…

ACIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 458/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y. : 2018-19 C.O. No. 99/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2018-19 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 458/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 32

…on on goodwill was rightly held by the Ld.CIT(A) to be prospective in nature. Hence, the AO could not take support of the said amendment. 11 C.O.No. 99/Mum/2024 10. The Ld.DR relied upon by the Co-ordinate Benches in the case of Borkar Packaging P Ltd (2010)(131 TTJ 99)(Panaji), wherein the goodwill, being the difference between purchase consideration and NAV of assets was held to be not eligible for depreciation. However, the above said decision has been rendered prior to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd (supra). Hence, the Revenue cannot take support of the…

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income, Cirlce 14(1)(2)Tax, Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2833/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…e Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Co On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Borkar Packaging (P.) Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji), d. v. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji), Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam). In the v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam) v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam) rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted s…

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2832/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2016 - 2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…e Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Co On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Borkar Packaging (P.) Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji), d. v. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji), Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam). In the v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam) v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam) rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted s…

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2831/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…e Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Co On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Borkar Packaging (P.) Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji), d. v. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji), Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam). In the v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam) v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam) rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted s…

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2830/MUM/2023[ASST YEAR 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…e Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Co On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Borkar Packaging (P.) Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji), d. v. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji), Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam). In the v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam) v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam) rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted s…

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

ITA 2829/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ein the intangibles acquired pursuant to a slump sale agreement are held to be eligible for depreciation. 10. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 (Panaji), Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam). In the rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that both the decisions are for the period prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smiffs Securities Ltd. (supra). 11. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused th…

M/S. Arun Excello Urban Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Chennai

In the result appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 731/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R.Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 09.11.2021
Section 234ASection 234BSection 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…e any business or commercial rights by paying consideration over and above asset value of the transferor company. The learned CIT(A) discussed the issue in light of decision of ITAT., Panaji Bench in the case of M/s. Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd Vs ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 and held that there was no business or commercial rights involved in paying amount and goodwill was a balancing amount in the scheme of amalgamation after fair value arrived at for merger of claim depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under:- “7.1 Assessee claimed depreciation…

Arun Excello Urban Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 537/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R.Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 09.11.2021
Section 234ASection 234BSection 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…e any business or commercial rights by paying consideration over and above asset value of the transferor company. The learned CIT(A) discussed the issue in light of decision of ITAT., Panaji Bench in the case of M/s. Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd Vs ACIT (2010) 131 TTJ 99 and held that there was no business or commercial rights involved in paying amount and goodwill was a balancing amount in the scheme of amalgamation after fair value arrived at for merger of claim depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under:- “7.1 Assessee claimed depreciation…

Borkar Packaging (P.) Borkar Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (131 TTJ 99) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax