How many judgments cite CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.?

540 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 32(1), Section 115JB, Section 32, Section 32(1)(ii), Section 14A.

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

348 ITR 302Supreme Court of India2012#119 most cited

What is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. authority for?

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

540

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,837 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smifs Securities Ltd. · depreciation on goodwill · Section 32(1) · intangible asset · goodwill on amalgamation · slump sale · business acquisition · commercial rights · Section 32(1)(ii) · excess consideration · Section 43(1) · CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

Also reported as

24 Taxmann.com 222210 Taxmann 42813 SCC 488252 CTR 233

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 115JB Section 32 Section 32(1)(ii)Section 14A Section 143(2)Section 43(1)

Issues it is cited on

goodwill arising on amalgamation depreciation on goodwill business transfer agreement section 43(6)(c)section 32(1)(ii)commercial rights transferor company section 43(6)transferee company slump sale section 32(1)section 170

Judgments citing CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…ch that the Assessing submitted by the Officer (“AO”) has erred in not allowing the claim of depreciation on goodwill in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata (2012) (348 ITR 302). In view thereof, a query was raised by the Hon'ble Bench as to whether the allowability of the said claim was affected by the amendments brought about in section 2(11) (definition of block of assets) and Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide Finance Act, 2021. 37 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa In connection with the ab…

Trivitron Healthcare P Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 17.05.2022

Section 2Section 263Section 32(1)

…annot claim or be allowed depreciation on the assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation more than the depreciation is allowable to the amalgamating company. As regards the decision of Honble Supreme Coin in the case of CIT Vs. Smiff Securities Ltd. (2072) 348 ITR 302 the said ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only on the point whether the goodwill falls in the category of intangible assets or any oilier business or commercial rights of similar nature as per the provisions of section 32(l) of the Act. Therefore, there is no quarrel on the issue that goodwill is eligible for depreciation. However, the said…

M/S. Hemavathy Power & Light Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1820/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2717 to 2719/Bang/2018 & 1820/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2012-13 M/s. Hemavathy Power & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Light Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Suit No.701 & 702, 7th Floor, Circle 11(4) / Circle 3(1)(2) / Prestige Meridian II, 3(1)(3) / 3(1)(1), M.G. Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AABCH 1245E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(…

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2719/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2718/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2717/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4338/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 (supra) which is on identical facts and CIT(A) after thrashing the facts in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC) decided the issue in favour of assessee by returning following findings: “9. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Engineering, Procurement and Construction(EPC) of Food, Diary, Chemical and Pharma Plants. The…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

ITA 4155/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S I & B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3415/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R

Section 43(1)

…intangible assets being goodwill was the difference between book value of the assets and liabilities taken over and the sale consideration paid to both the concerns. The assessee also relied upon the decision in the case of' CIT vs Smif's. Securities Limited 348 ITR 302 (SC) and some other decisions to argue depreciation on goodwill needs to be allowed to it. After considering the replies of the assessee, the AO held that the assessee had failed to provide any basis for determining the value of the goodwill as Rs. 17,20,22,909/-. The AO observed that no such valuation of goodwill was provided by the assessee and…

Danfos Power Solutions India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2673/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2673/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(II)

…Dantal Hydrolics Ltd. in financial year 2001- 02 relevant to A.Y. 2002-03. 4. There is hardly any dispute between the parties such as a depreciation claim pertaining to goodwill is indeed allowable once hon‟ble apex court having settled the law in case (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC) Smifs Securities Ltd. Their lordships have admittedly considered Sec.32(1)(II) read with Explanation 3(b) of the Act that a goodwill indeed forms intangible asset eligible for depreciation. 5. The department at this stage invited our attention to the Assessing Officer‟s assessment discussion that the assessee‟s claim could not even been en…

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

…huge variations between the projections used for the said valuations, and the actual revenues earned by the Appellant for the corresponding period. The Appellant's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Limited, 348 ITR 302 was rejected on the ground that in the present case it is the valuation that is challenged and not the eligibility of depreciation on goodwill as a principle settled by the Hon'ble SC. 57. The AO rejected the value of goodwill by invoking the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act and holding that the said acquisition is a colourable device t…

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

…n disallowed was reduced to Rs. 1,24,75,734 which is the amount in the ground of appeal. 23. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) noted the assessee’s submission. He found the issue covered by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302). He held as under :- “I have carefully gone through the assessment order, written submissions made by the assessee as well as case laws cited. It is seen that Vulcan Developers Pvt. Ltd. (VDPL) got merged with Appellant, pursuant to scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Jurisdictional High Court, vide its order dated 30.04.2015, with effect…

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7286/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhl Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit – 9(3)(1) 201A, Silver Utopia, Room No. 215, Cardinal Gracias Road 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Chakala, Andheri (E) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400099 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6824A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat.CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DHL Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT – 9(3)(1) 201A, Silver Utopia, Room No. 215, Cardinal Gracias Road 2nd Floor, Aayakar Chakala, Andheri (E) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400099 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACM6824A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Madhur Agarwal.AR Respondent by : Dr. Yogesh Kamat.CIT.DR Date of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the ap…

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…on the business acquisition on slump sale basis, alleging that intangible asset capitalised as goodwill is fictitious in nature, without any basis. The Ld. AO further attempted to distinguish the decision of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd7 348 ITR 302 (SC) holding that the question raised before the Hon’ble SC was limited to whether G/W is an asset u/s 32, that the findings of facts by the Hon’ble Tribunal were not under appeal and that SC did not rule on the contextual facts of the present case. The DRP upheld the disallowance and held that the basis for valuation could not be produced before…

M/S. Altimetrik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

…n of apportionment between the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the ratio of the number of days for which the assets were used by them does not arise. He placed reliance on the following decisions in support. 1. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC). 2. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd. [2019] 109 taxmann.com 47 (Delhi –Trib.) 3. Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (2020) 113 taxmann.com 6 (Hyderabad-Trib.) Page 6 of 9 IT(TP)A No. 2511/Bang/2019 The Ld.DR placed reliance on the orders passed by authorities below. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of M…

ACIT Cir- 2(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 261/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 261/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1) बिधम/ Infrasoft Technologies Ltd. Room No.561, 5th Floor, 904, 9th Floor, Ackruti Star, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Central Road, MIDC, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400096. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACB2817R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala Revenue by: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 23/12/2021 घोष…

Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -5, Mumbai

ITA 780/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dharamveer Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 35A

…for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the proposition that license is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act and, thus, it is eligible for depreciation. He relied on CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of goodwill and held as under: - “3. The Assessing Officer held that goodwill was not an asset falling under Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [`Act', for short]. We quote hereinbelow Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act: "Explanation 3.-- For the purposes…

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4771/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 234DSection 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…to be not includible in the expression used in the provision to explain the unspecified intangible assets. In our considered opinion, this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Summit court in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC) in which it ITA No.1976/Del/2006 has been held: "that goodwill will fall under the expression 'or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature'" and, hence, qualifies for depreciation u/s 32(1) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the legal issue raised in the question before the Special bench 23 ITA.No.4771/Del./2018 Geodis Overs…

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…the assessee in the following words: 31. In so far as the depreciation of goodwill is concerned, this issue is by now well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CITv. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] ^ taxmann.com 222/210 Taxman 428/348 ITR 302 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ncia that good will acquired on amalgamation [being the difference between cost of asstts and consideration paid] is a capital right and thus eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. 3.2.3.1 Considering the facts of the case in totality, in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Smifs Securities…

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of

ITA 601/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 32(1)(i)

…reversed by the HobbleMumbai Bench of the Tribunal. 3.4That the Id. AO erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in proposing to disallow depreciation on Goodwill by alleging that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.: 348 ITR 302 does not give any clarity on the aspect related to valuation of ‘Goodwill’. 4. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in not allowing the deduction of Rs.2,85,92,404 claimed on account of reimbursement paid to the parent company towards ESOP for granting stock options to employees of the appellant. 4.1That the Ld. AO/ DRP erred on facts…