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.

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 302)

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 948/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…cit of I207.55 crores was notionally treated as purchase consideration and argued that on this amount the assessee claimed depreciation. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd.(348 ITR 302) dated 22.08.2012. 7.2 Per contra, the Ld. DR invited our attention to para 12 of the Memorandum of Understanding, which is extracted as under : “12. Regarding Goodwill:-Since the business of Transferor Bank is undermoratorium from 14/09/2006, the Transferor Bank does not enjoy any goodwill in commercial terms. Accordingly, no monetary considerat…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 777/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…cit of I207.55 crores was notionally treated as purchase consideration and argued that on this amount the assessee claimed depreciation. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd.(348 ITR 302) dated 22.08.2012. 7.2 Per contra, the Ld. DR invited our attention to para 12 of the Memorandum of Understanding, which is extracted as under : “12. Regarding Goodwill:-Since the business of Transferor Bank is undermoratorium from 14/09/2006, the Transferor Bank does not enjoy any goodwill in commercial terms. Accordingly, no monetary considerat…

Tam Media Research P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6035/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhantam Media Research Pvt. Ltd. Ito- 5(3)(3), 9Th Floor, Hincon House, Tower-B, Aayakar Bhavan , Vs. 247 Park, L.B.S. Marg,Vikhroli (W) Churchgate, Mumbai 83 Mumbai. Pan – Aaact4953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R Respondent By :Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R

…sis of our aforesaid observations, we find, that the assesees claim of depreciation on „goodwill‟ in the case before us falls within the four corners of the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Kolkata Vs. Smifs Securities Limited (2012) 348 ITR 302(S.C). As is discernible from the financial statements of the assessee company before us, the excess consideration of Rs. 11,44,77,378/- paid by the assessee company over and above the value of the „net assets‟ on acquisition of “Adex Business” of M/s A.C. Nielson ORG-Marg Research Pvt. Ltd had been considered as „goodwill‟ by the assessee company…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Shamim Yahya, Am & Sri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 767/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Bipin B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32

…4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is fully covered by several Tribunal decisions in assessee’s own case, wherein Tribunal following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 302 (SC) deleted the disallowance of depreciation. We may refer to ITAT order for AY 2012-13 in ITA No.1775/Mum/2017 for following observations in Para 4 to 6 as under: - “4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is fully covered by Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 2146/Mum/201…

M/S. Incap Contract Manufacturing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 32/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)

…herefore the claim of the assessee is required to be considered by treating the said payment as goodwill. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smsifs Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 302 and submitted that in view of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, goodwill eligible for depreciation as per the Section 31(1)(ii) of the Act. Since the assessee did not claim depreciation on goodwill in the return of income and even not made any claim before the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, the issue of allowing depreciation on goodwill…

Nxp Semiconductors India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

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

…nal was justified in disallowing the depreciation on goodwill under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the basic question raised in this appeal. 2. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smifs Securities Limited reported in 348 ITR 302 (SC) has held that the depreciation would be allowable on goodwill. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. 3. The appeal is accordingly disposed…

ACIT, Circle - 11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 881/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.881/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Vs. M/S. Shristi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.X-1,2 & 3, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp5074F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata Dated 26.12.2018 Passed In Case No.738/Cit(A)-4/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Surana, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.881/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Vs. M/s. Shristi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.X-1,2 and 3, Block-EP, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCP5074F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT Respondent by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara:…

ACIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Engineering & Electronics Ltd. (Formerly Blue Star Electro Mechanical Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6412/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5242/Mum/2017 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Blue Star Engineering & Income Tax-1(1)(1), Electronics Ltd. 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. (Formerly M/S Blue Star Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Electro Mechanical Limited) Kasturi Building, Mohan T. Vs. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecb1558M

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR

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

…t of all stated that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13 in ITA No. 252/Mum/2017 for AY 2012-13 vide order dated 29.08.2018 has considered this issue and relying on the Supreme Court decisions in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC) and the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Indian Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. (supra) also considering the explanation 3 to section 32(1)(iii) 8 | P a g e Blue Star Engineering of Electronics Ltd. ITA Nos.5242/Mum/2017 & 6412/Mum/2016 of the Act considered the business contracts as intangible assets and allowed the claim of the assessee by obs…

Marie Gold Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2838/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., 21St Floor, Nirmal Vs. (Central)-4, 10Th Floor, Room. No. Building, Nariman Point, 1001, Cgo Building, Annexe, M.K. Mumbai-400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaecm7896B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Narendra Singh Jangpangi, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…is a legally permissible view and is supported by the following case laws: 1. CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (supra) 2. CIT vs. M/s. Areva T & D India Limited (supra) 3. Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) 4. CIT vs Smifs Securities Ltd 348 ITR 302 (supra) In the decision of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd (supra) the receipt on transfer of tenancy right has been accepted as capital receipt. In the decision of M/s. Areva T & D India Limited (supra) tenancy right has been accepted as capital asset eligible for depreciation. In the decision of Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. (supra) deprec…

M/S Incap Contract Manufacturing Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 697/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhit(Tp)A No.697/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…herefore the claim of the assessee is required to be considered by treating the said payment as goodwill. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smsifs Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 302 and submitted that in view of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, goodwill eligible for depreciation as per the Section 31(1)(ii) of the Act. Since the assessee did not claim depreciation on goodwill in the return of income and even not made any claim before the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, the issue of allowing depreciation on goodwill…

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

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

ITA 5708/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR

Section 144Section 153Section 32Section 37Section 40

…by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. 2.4 That the learned 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. Smits Securities Ltd.: 348 ITR 302 does not give any clarity on the aspect related to valuation of ‘Goodwill’. 3. That the Ld. AO/ DRP erred on facts and in law in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 14,99,05,312 claimed on account of reimbursement paid to the parent company towards ESOP for granting stock options to employees of the appellant. 3 ITA No:-5708/Del/2019 Assessment…

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1030/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Sooddhl Logistics Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 201A,Silver Utopia, Income Tax Circle 9(3)(1), Cardinal Gracias Road, Mumbai Vs. Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 059 Pan – Aaacm6824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan &

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92D

…& Muirhead Pvt. Ltd. in AY 2008-09 and granting depreciation on the same. 5.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in holding that the ratio laid by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302) is not applicable in the present case and consequently erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible assets including goodwill. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to allow depreciation of Rs. 22,36,07,813 on intangible assets including goodwill. 6. Penalty proceeding 6.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,…

Spirit Infrapower and Multiventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3081/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/shri V. Chandra Sekhar, Harshad Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)

…29.09.2013, was well in conformity with the settled position of law. In order to drive home his aforesaid contention, the Ld. A.R had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Kolkata Vs. Smifs Securities Limited (2012) 348 ITR 302(S.C) and the order of the ITAT, Pune in the case of The Cosmos Co-op Bank Limited Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 7, Pune [ITA No. 460 & 461/PN/2012, dated 23.01.2014] (copies placed on record). On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. A.R that as the Pr.CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction under Sec. 263 for dislodging a balanced and…

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

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

ITA 5026/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…mounting to Rs. 26,75,57,10,570 pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL with the appellant. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, pursuant to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 302, depreciation ought to be allowed in terms of section 32(1)(i) of the Act in respect of ‘Goodwill’ pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL while computing the taxable income of the appellant, 5.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationshi…

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4913/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…mounting to Rs. 26,75,57,10,570 pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL with the appellant. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, pursuant to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 302, depreciation ought to be allowed in terms of section 32(1)(i) of the Act in respect of ‘Goodwill’ pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL while computing the taxable income of the appellant, 5.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationshi…

M/S. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1944/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…mounting to Rs. 26,75,57,10,570 pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL with the appellant. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, pursuant to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 302, depreciation ought to be allowed in terms of section 32(1)(i) of the Act in respect of ‘Goodwill’ pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL while computing the taxable income of the appellant, 5.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationshi…

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

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

ITA 7637/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…mounting to Rs. 26,75,57,10,570 pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL with the appellant. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, pursuant to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 302, depreciation ought to be allowed in terms of section 32(1)(i) of the Act in respect of ‘Goodwill’ pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL while computing the taxable income of the appellant, 5.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationshi…

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

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

ITA 7112/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…mounting to Rs. 26,75,57,10,570 pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL with the appellant. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, pursuant to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 302, depreciation ought to be allowed in terms of section 32(1)(i) of the Act in respect of ‘Goodwill’ pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL while computing the taxable income of the appellant, 5.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationshi…

Arivent Technologies Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1308/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…mounting to Rs. 26,75,57,10,570 pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL with the appellant. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, pursuant to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 302, depreciation ought to be allowed in terms of section 32(1)(i) of the Act in respect of ‘Goodwill’ pursuant to amalgamation of Flextronics and FSL while computing the taxable income of the appellant, 5.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationshi…

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai vs. Dorma India P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeal filed by

ITA 1666/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 32

…on goodwill as per the Companies Act, 1956 (refer Attachment 1). However, the same was inadvertently not claimed by the Company in the computation of taxable income." The assessee company relied on the following case laws:- (i) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd., (348 ITR 302)(SC) (ii) Areva T & D India Ltd., v. DCIT (345 ITR 421) (Delhi) (iii) CIT-IV vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd., (331 ITR 192) (Delhi) The AO asked assessee to submit complete details of depreciation on goodwill claimed by assessee, financial statements of Arc Trends Systems India Private Ltd., and Global Trends System Private Ltd., as…

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

Tam Media Research P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(3), Mumbai

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

M/S. Incap Contract Manufacturing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Nxp Semiconductors India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ACIT, Circle - 11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

ACIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Engineering & Electronics Ltd. (Formerly Blue Star Electro Mechanical Ltd.), Mumbai

Marie Gold Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai

M/S Incap Contract Manufacturing Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

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

Spirit Infrapower and Multiventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

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

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi

M/S. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

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

Arivent Technologies Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai vs. Dorma India P. Ltd., Chennai