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 115JBSection 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 14ASection 143(2)Section 43(1)

Issues it is cited on

goodwill arising on amalgamationdepreciation on goodwillbusiness transfer agreementsection 43(6)(c)section 32(1)(ii)commercial rightstransferor companysection 43(6)transferee companyslump salesection 32(1)section 170

Judgments citing CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

M/S. Middleby Celforts Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-15 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shrichanda Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRICHANDA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.953 to 955/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s. Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 3rd Floor, Onyx Centre, No.5, Circle – 4(1)(2), Musuem Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAICM 8445 J Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 14.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are appeals by…

M/S. Middleby Celforts Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-15 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shrichanda Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRICHANDA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.953 to 955/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s. Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 3rd Floor, Onyx Centre, No.5, Circle – 4(1)(2), Musuem Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAICM 8445 J Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 14.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are appeals by…

M/S. Middleeby Celforts Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-15 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 953/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shrichanda Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRICHANDA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.953 to 955/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s. Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 3rd Floor, Onyx Centre, No.5, Circle – 4(1)(2), Musuem Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAICM 8445 J Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 14.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are appeals by…

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) SRF Limited Vs. ACIT The Galleria, DLF Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, LTU 2nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 PAN : AAACS 0206 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue by Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 16.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Glf Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4556/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Glf Lifestyle Pvt.Ltd., Circle-10(1), Flat No.3A/1, Taj Apartment, C.R.Building, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaecg3087E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

…t. Ltd. (GCPL) taken over by the assessee was in fact goodwill which is in the form of commercial and business rights and depreciation is allowable on the said differential as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smifs Securities Limited (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC). • The Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately discussed Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act in the case of CIT v. Smifs Securities Limited(supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "2. It was further explained that excess consideration paid by the assessee over the value of net assets acquired of YSN Shares and Securities Pr…

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)

…pport its argument, the assessee has filed valuation report for determining value of goodwill and brand value, from independent auditor and has also taken support from decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC). 4. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, consideration paid over and above value of assets & liabilities is simple goodwill, but not intangible being any business or commercial rights of similar nature in the nature of intangible assets as defined u/s.32(1)(ii)…

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)

…pport its argument, the assessee has filed valuation report for determining value of goodwill and brand value, from independent auditor and has also taken support from decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC). 4. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, consideration paid over and above value of assets & liabilities is simple goodwill, but not intangible being any business or commercial rights of similar nature in the nature of intangible assets as defined u/s.32(1)(ii)…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 664/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, A.R
Section 143(3)

…the Hon’ble ITAT dated 3.1.2020 (in assessee’s own case for preceding AY 2007-08) in ITA No.397/Bang/2017. The AO in this impugned order, observed that depreciation on Goodwill was allowable as a general principle in light of the judgement of SMIFS Securities 348 ITR 302 (SC). However, the AO while distinguishing the present case, relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble ITAT in ITA No.3279/Mum/2008 in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., wherein it was held that no depreciation on goodwill would arise in respect of a mere book entry. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s action. The…

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payers Unit Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George K

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT
Section 133(6)

…36 Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill 32. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. Similar issue came up for consideration in assessee’s own case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Simfs Securities Ltd., 348 ITR 302 wherein it is held that “A reading of the words "any other business or commercial rig nature" in clause (b) of Explanation 3 to section 32(1) indicates that good-will would fall under the expression. The principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply while interpreting the expression which finds place in Explanation 3(b). Goodwill is an asset…

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2228/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George K

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT
Section 133(6)

…36 Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill 32. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. Similar issue came up for consideration in assessee’s own case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Simfs Securities Ltd., 348 ITR 302 wherein it is held that “A reading of the words "any other business or commercial rig nature" in clause (b) of Explanation 3 to section 32(1) indicates that good-will would fall under the expression. The principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply while interpreting the expression which finds place in Explanation 3(b). Goodwill is an asset…

Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 55/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 55 & 56/Ahd/2021 Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-2018 Troikaa Pharmaceuticals The PCIT, Ltd. Commerce House-1, Ahmedabad-3 Opp: Rajvansh Apartment, Vs (Respondent) Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AABCT6866H (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R. Assessee by: Shri Dhiren Shah & Shri Nupur Shah, A.Rs. Date of hearing : 17-09-2021 Date of pronouncement : 17-11-2021 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUN…

M/S. Tuv Rheinland Nife Academy Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 2633/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Kavitha Paramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain &
Section 170Section 201Section 32(1)Section 40Section 47

…d above the net-worth of NIFE Academy is consideration paid for non-competition and non-solicitation by M.V. Thomas. 9. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 302 in order to contend that goodwill is eligible for depreciation. However, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the tax authorities in the above said case has recorded a finding that difference between cost of an asset and the amount paid constituted goodwill. However, in the instant case, the A.O. has not accepted the similar claim made by the assessee on…

Kontoor Brands India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Vf Brands India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 287/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.287/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Kontoor Brands India Private The Dy.Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Vf Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Brands India Private Limited) `Awfis’, 1St Floor, Shabari Complex Field Marshan Cariappa Road Shantala Nagar, Ashok Nagar Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaccv2727L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.V.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit (Osd)-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Appeal In The Instance Of The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 Passed U/S 143(2) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 30 Grounds Of Appeal. Ground Nos.1 To 3, 29 & 30 Are General In Nature & No Adjudication Is Called For, Hence These Grounds Are Dismissed. Ground Nos.4 To 21 Is Regarding Transfer Pricing Adjustment Of Amp Expenses. Ground Nos. 22 To 28 Is Regarding Solitary Corporate Tax Issue, Namely, Whether Design & Technical Knowhow, Vendor Network Relationship (Vr) Acquires As Part

For Appellant: Sri.V.Nageshwar Rao, ADvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (OSD)-DR
Section 143(2)Section 32(1)

…penses under the head design and technical know-how and it prefers to allocate the same under the head goodwill. There is no dispute for the depreciation on the goodwill as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of semifs securities Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 302 wherein it was held as under: 4. Explanation 3 states that the expression 'asset' shall mean an intangible asset, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading the words 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' in clause (b) of Expla…

Vf Brands India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1285/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1285/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)

…penses under the head design and technical know-how and it prefers to allocate the same under the head goodwill. There is no dispute for the depreciation on the goodwill as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of semifs securities Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 302 wherein it was held as under: 4. Explanation 3 states that the expression 'asset' shall mean an intangible asset, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading the words 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' in clause (b) of Expla…

M/S. Surzlon Global Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 67-68/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/S. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaics1406R

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani Sr.Advocate, &For Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 32

…profession, the following deductions shall be allowed— 8.21 On perusal of the above provisions, we note that the word goodwill has nowhere been mentioned. However we note that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd reported in 348 ITR 302 has held that the goodwill falls within the definition of the intangible assets under the category of any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. The relevant extract of judgment of Hon’ble apex court reads as under: Explanation 3 to section 32(1) states that the expression 'asset' shall mean an intangible asset, being know-how, pa…

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7281/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 32

…the DR strongly supported the Assessment Order. 9. We find that this claim is no more res-integra as the issue has been settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 302. We do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). 10. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. 11. Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the representatives on 08.09.2021. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date:-08.09.2021…

Exlservices.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7392/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Exlservices.Com (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 414, 4Th Floor, Plot No.10 Circle – 1, Nbcc Plaza & 11, Dlp Jasola Tower-B, Pushp Vihar, Dda District Centre, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi - 110025 Pan No. Aaace 5174 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Saksham Singhal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 155JSection 271(1)(c)

…re the DRP, the same was deleted. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No. 302/Del/2015 and after relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Areva T & D India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 345 ITR 421 held that depreciation was admissible on ‘goodwill’ and thereby dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. He submitted that the aforesaid order of Tribunal was followed in subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16 by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal…

Toshali Cements Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2346/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)

…ry to law and facts of the case. 2. a) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill brushing aside the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd (348 ITR 302) on the ground that the facts of the appellant's case are different from the facts of the case before the Supreme Court. b) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 erred in stating that it is not clear as to how deferred sales tax liability is claimed under the head of Goodwill and sought to be depreciated. Commissioner of Income Tax :- 3 -: ITA…

Toshali Cements Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

ITA 463/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)

…ry to law and facts of the case. 2. a) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill brushing aside the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd (348 ITR 302) on the ground that the facts of the appellant's case are different from the facts of the case before the Supreme Court. b) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 erred in stating that it is not clear as to how deferred sales tax liability is claimed under the head of Goodwill and sought to be depreciated. Commissioner of Income Tax :- 3 -: ITA…

Toshali Cements Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

ITA 651/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)

…ry to law and facts of the case. 2. a) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill brushing aside the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd (348 ITR 302) on the ground that the facts of the appellant's case are different from the facts of the case before the Supreme Court. b) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 erred in stating that it is not clear as to how deferred sales tax liability is claimed under the head of Goodwill and sought to be depreciated. Commissioner of Income Tax :- 3 -: ITA…