CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

Gilbarco Veeder, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

…set off if the return of income is filed beyond the due date specified in section 139(1) and it is seen that the assessee company has claimed depreciation on goodwill @ 25% by relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. 24 Taxmann.com 222 and the assessee had stated the reason that the above decision came later on when the original return was filed by the assessee company and that too they filed the revised return and claimed the depreciation and the goodwill which was disallowed by the AO. Further he has also relied on the following case laws: (i) Areva T & D India Ltd.…

Grindwell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3589/M/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Grindwell Norton Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit (Osd)-1 Room Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, No.579, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg8752B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

…of TRIUNE ENERGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. DCIT 65 taxmann.com 288(Delhi) wherein identical issue was involved, in similar facts and circumstances. Hon’ble Delhi High Court relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302) and held as under: “Goodwill is an intangible asset providing a competitive advantage to an entity. This includes a strong brand, reputation, a cohesive human resource, dealer network, customer base, etc. The expression 'goodwill' subsumes within it a variety of intangible benefits that are acquired when a person acquires a business of another a…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Electro Mechanical Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.252/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit 1(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Blue Star Electro 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Mechanical Ltd. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Kasturi Building, Mohan T. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecb1558M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Sr Ar) Assessee By: Shri Soumen Adak & Ashish Jhawar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred Was Justified In Holding That Rights Acquired For Acquisition Of Customer Contracts Falls Within The Expression "Any Other Business A.Y.2012-13

…f the CIT(A) has duly been covered by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of India Capital Markets P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 56 SOT 32 (Mum), Brembo Brake India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2015) 68 SOT (Pune) & CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC). Before going further, we deemed it is necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record.:- “4.4 I have carefully considered the submission made on behalf of the appellant. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, this issue is covered in favour of the appellant in earlier year wherein CIT(A) in its order dated 29.07.2016 has held as…

Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited(Succesor in Interest to Thomsan Reuters International Services Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Thomson Reuters International Dcit, Circle 13(3)(2) Services Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor (Successor In Interst To Thomson Reuters Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road India Services Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Mumbai 400020 Prism Towers, A Wing, 8Th Floor Mindspace, Off New Link Road Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400062 Pan – Aabci0605H Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle 13(3)(2) M/S. Thomson Reuters Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor International Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Services Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 400020 (Successor In Interst To Thomson Vs. Reuters India Services Pvt. Ltd.) Prism Towers, A Wing, 8Th Floor Mindspace, Off New Link Road Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400062 Pan – Aabci0605H Appellant Respondent Co No. 148/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Thomson Reuters International Dcit, Circle 13(3)(2) Services Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor Prism Towers, A Wing, 8Th Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mindspace, Off New Link Road Mumbai 400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400062 Pan – Aabci0605H Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Percy J. Pardiwala & Ms. Aarti Sathe Revenue By: Shir Jayant Kumar Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018

…Y. 2009-10 for the above acquisition. However, during A.Y. 2011-12, the year under consideration the company had claimed depreciation on goodwill in revised return of income relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 302, since the appeal for A.Y. 2009- 10 is pending wherein for the first time the assessee has made claim for goodwill. Thus, allowability of claim of depreciation during the year under consideration depends on the outcome of A.Y. 2009-10 i.e. the first year in which claim of goodwill was lodged. Accordingly, we direct the AO to decide the issue of c…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Kodak Polychrome Graphics India P.Tld, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Kodak Polychrome Graphics Deputy Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Range 10(1), (Since Merged With Kodak India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd.) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mumbai Vs. Mistry, Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabck1644C (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : A.C.I.T-10(1), M/S Kodak Polychrome 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Graphics India Pvt. Ltd., बिधम/ 4Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Kalpataru Synergy, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai 400 020 Off. Western Express Highway, Vs. Vakola Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabck1644C (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…aphic (I) P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 1557/Mum/2009, dated 26.06.2013). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal had in its aforesaid order by relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC), had allowed the claim of the assessee towards depreciation on intangible assets within the meaning of Sec.32(1)(ii) of the Act. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) submitted that in case if the issue pertaining to the benchmarking of the international transactions of purchase of plates and plate chemicals by th…

Kodak Polychrome Graphics P. Ltd ( Since Merged With Kodak India P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Kodak Polychrome Graphics Deputy Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Range 10(1), (Since Merged With Kodak India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd.) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mumbai Vs. Mistry, Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabck1644C (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : A.C.I.T-10(1), M/S Kodak Polychrome 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Graphics India Pvt. Ltd., बिधम/ 4Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Kalpataru Synergy, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai 400 020 Off. Western Express Highway, Vs. Vakola Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabck1644C (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…aphic (I) P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 1557/Mum/2009, dated 26.06.2013). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal had in its aforesaid order by relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC), had allowed the claim of the assessee towards depreciation on intangible assets within the meaning of Sec.32(1)(ii) of the Act. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) submitted that in case if the issue pertaining to the benchmarking of the international transactions of purchase of plates and plate chemicals by th…

ACIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sumitomo Chemical (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Rajendra, Am & Sri Pawan Singh, Jm Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No.578/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11)

…6-07 in ITA No.3078 and the Tribunal passed the following order: “45. We have gone through the submissions made by the assessee and we find that the issue of goodwill stands covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd reported in 348 ITR 302, 4 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that intangibles like goodwill are eligible for depreciation. 46. However in so far as non compete fee is concerned, the nature of this payment is now covered under section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hence, it would be revenue in nature. 47. We, therefore, direct the AO to allow the depreciat…

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

In the result, the appeal assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…uirhead Pvt. Ltd. In A.Y. 200809 and granting depreciation on the same. 1.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. 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. 1.7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. has erred in not considering the facts that the appellant Company's own case the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the depreciation under secti…