“slump sale”

Capital GainsSection 50BSection 50B409 judgments

The decision most relied on for slump sale is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on slump sale

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court

540

citing judgments

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.

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT

345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT

41 Taxmann.com 120 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

A non-compete fee paid as part of a business acquisition or transaction constitutes an intangible asset, eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT

255 ITR 26 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on goodwill acquired through the slump sale of a business. When an assessee claims depreciation on the enhanced cost of an asset supported by a registered valuer's report, tax authorities must produce countervailing evidence, such as a departmental valuation report, to challenge it, rather than simply disregarding the expert opinion.

Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT

350 ITR 324 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

A deduction for interest expense on borrowed funds used for interest-free advances to group companies is permissible only if the assessee establishes these advances were from surplus funds. The decision further clarifies eligibility for depreciation on intangible assets like non-compete fees, software, goodwill, and commercial rights under section 32(1)(ii), often arising from a slump sale.

Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

65 Taxmann.com 288 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

When a business is purchased as a going concern, the consideration paid in excess of the value of its tangible assets is classified as goodwill, which is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation without needing a separate valuation.

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co.

227 ITR 260 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

In a slump sale, the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned among individual assets for claiming depreciation, as there is no indication of the price attributable to specific assets out of the total sale consideration.

Areva T & D India Ltd. v. DCIT

20 Taxmann.com 29 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Specified intangible assets like business claims, information, records, contracts, employees, and know-how acquired under a slump sale are considered 'business or commercial rights' eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii).

Judgments citing slump sale

DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Fairs & Media Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4317/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 47

solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation on the goodwill when the transaction of sale of slump sale to subsidiary company is not regarded as transfer within the meaning of Section 47(iv) of the Income ... goodwill was acceptable by an independent third party. 20. Interestingly, in its ground of appeal, the Revenue has challenged that transaction of sale of slump sale to subsidiary company is not regarded as transfer within the meaning of Section 47(iv) of the Act. But, we find that

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

Manali (Tamilnadu), Engineering Plastic business at Manali (Tamilnadu) and Engineering Plastic business at Pantnagar (Uttrakhand) for a consideration of Rs.150,31,26,228/- as slump sale on 31st December 2008. It was submitted that the businesses was purchased from M/s SRF Polymers Limited on lump sum basis and the amount ... were not found acceptable to AO. AO noted that the assessee had purchased three business for a consideration of Rs.150,31,26,228/- as slump sale without making its valuation. He noted that assessee, after the purchase had made valuation of the assets and liabilities which was determined at Rs.146

M/S. Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Genpact Services Llc, Vs. Dcit, Genpact Tower, Sector-53, Circle-1(3)(1), (International Dlf City, Phase-V, Taxation), Gurgaon New Delhi Pan :Aaccg3353P (Appellant) (Respondent)

year under consideration, the assessee had acquired third party debt collection services as well as part of analytical business of M/s. Genpact India as slump sale as a going concern on “as is where is basis” for a total consideration of Rs. 62,12,70,648/-. Out of which ... goodwill included value of trained and assembled workforce, amounting to Rs.2,91,63,000/-. He observed, the assessee had acquired the business on a slump sale as a going concerns on “as is where is basis”. He observed that business was acquired along with all assets and liabilities

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

however, that the amount of such reduction does not exceed the written down value as so increased; and (C) in the case of a slump sale, decrease by the actual cost of the asset falling within that block as reduced— (a) by the amount of depreciation actually allowed

Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 209/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

completed transfer of its Product Engineering Services (PES) Business Unit to LTTSL effective January 1, 2014, PES Business Unit was transferred by way of slump sale for total sales consideration of Rs. 489.53 crs based on ITA No. 4740/Del./2018 fair valuation, GDA Technologies Inc., USA (GDA Inc.), a wholly

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

prejudice to the above the learned AO / DRP erred in taxing the capital gain twice , once on transfer of Sprinkler business by way of slump sale (INR 12,00,00,000 — INR 9,99,82,170 = INR 2,00,17,830) and secondly by considering the cost of equity shares ... wanted to sell its Sprinkler business as a going concern, identifying it’s assets and liabilities. The Assessee sold its sprinkler business on a slump sale basis. As per section 2(42C) of the Act, ‘slump sale’ means the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result

M/S Mhm Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12, Bangalore

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

ITA 372/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Mhm Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Range - 12 Bengaluru No. 52, Bassappa Road Shantinagar Bengaluru 560027 Pan – Aabcm6614L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Parthasarathi, Adv. Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarathi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 50B

assessee has sold their capacitor business 2 M/s. MHM Holding Pvt. Ltd. and component business to M/s. Schneider Electric (I) Pvt. Ltd. on slump sale basis. The assessee had declared a capital gain of Rs.97,74,55,161/- under the provisions of Section ... claimed in the original return cannot prevent the learned Commissioner (A) to consider the claim which was genuine and had direct nexus to the slump sale of the business. 6. The learned Commissioner (A) erred in holding the disallowance of Rs.1,42,67,213/- without appreciating the appellant

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

appeal is being decided on merits. 3. The facts in brief are that, during the assessment year 2008- 09 the assessee had via slump sale taken the entire Pharma and agro division as a going concern basis from Almet Corporation Ltd. from the effective date of November, 2007. The assessment ... 141/Mum/2022 Mahavir Ghar Sansar Private Limited December 15, 2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer accepted the slump sale and also allowed depreciation on goodwill by treating the same as intangible asset for the assessment year 2008-2009. In the assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

Section 2Section 37Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B

following grounds of appeal. Assessee’s appeal: “The grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. 1. Computing profits earned from "slump sale" as business income instead of long-term capital gains on transfer of Splash division 1.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the business transfer ... Splash division of the Appellant as slump sale and upholding the findings of learned AO without providing any basis. 1.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant has furnished additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules,1962 ["the Rules"]. Further

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 174/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, D.R

Section 144(3)Section 37Section 92C

ESOP whereas on the other hand, the learned AO states that the said expenditure is notional / fictitious in nature. 3. Disallowance of depreciation on slump sale as per intimation under section 143(1) of the Act — INR 22,08,81,498 3.1. The Appellant had entered into a slump sale ... sixth proviso to Section 32 of the Act, the Appellant has claimed depreciation amounting to Rs. 22,08,81,498 on assets transferred under slump sale, based on the number of days the assets have been put to use by the Appellant. 3.2. On account of the limitation of disclosure

Mwh India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1891/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 1891/मुं/2014 ("न. व. 2009-10 ) Mwh India Pvt. Ltd. 168, Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Goregaon(E) Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Aaaca-4613-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 9(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D.Mistri With Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj Sheth ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistri with Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 50BSection 92C

international transactions with its Associated Enterprise (AE) including provision of engineering design services and management services. Apart from above, the assessee also entered into slump sale agreement with its AE an Indian Company. Reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA of the Act to benchmark ... that the assessee has entered into an asset purchase agreement dated 20/03/2009 with MWH ResourceNet (India) Pvt. Ltd. for sale of Pune division on slump sale basis. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not furnished Form 3CEA to substantiate working of net worth as enshrined in section

ACIT Cir 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Parenteral Drugs (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2777/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 80I

sale, the entire plant and machinery at Goa Formulations Ltd., including FFS machines bought from M/s. Anitas Exports Pvt. Ltd., were sold under a slump sale agreement dated 15/02/2013 to M/s. Fresenius Kabi India Pvt. Ltd., global leader in the business of IV Fluids at the very same price that ... bonafides and genuineness of the sale price of the machines sold by M/s. Anitas Exports Pvt. Ltd., to the assessee. The said slump sale agreement also was enclosed before the ld. AO. 3.5. The ld. CIT(A) observed that as per the provisions of Section

Asst CIT Cir 4, Thane vs. Palghar Land Development Corporation, Vasai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6812/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6812/मुं/2016 ("न.व. 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -4, Thane, 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Room No.2, Ashar I.T.Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16Z, Thane (W). ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Palghar Land Development Corporation, Dewan Tower, Station Road, Navghar, Vasai . Pan: Aabfp-5145-J ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23/08/2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Findings Of Cit(A) On Two Grounds. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder SindhuFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 50B

firm were taken over by one of its partners, M/s Housing Development and Improvement India Ltd. (HDIL) on 15.10.2005 by way of a slump sale u/s 50B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and surplus arising on account of such slump sale has already been offered for taxation as long term ... rightly disclosed the said amount in the balance sheet and ultimately the said advances are also taken over and appropriated as part of the slump sale, there is no reason for making this addition. As a result, the appeal of the appellant on this ground is allowed and the addition

Metallurgical Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 835/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 835/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2015-16) Metallurgical Services Private Limited, Mehta House, Ashok Silk Mills Lane, Opp. Damodar Park, Off Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400 086 Pan: Aafcm-5665-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumba-6, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Siddesh Chougule & Ajit Jain "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Amol Kirtane & Mehul Jain सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: S/Shri Siddesh Chougule & Ajit JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Kirtane & Mehul Jain

Section 263Section 92BSection 92B(1)

foreign entity) at a price less than business worth; and. (iii) Assessee’s claim of depreciation on goodwill generated on purchase of business in slump sale by the assessee from M/s. Metallurgical Services. 5. The CIT(A) has observed that the Assessing Officer has failed to examine aforesaid transactions during ... sake of clarity: 6 - M/s. Metallurgical Services (a partnership firm) sold its entire business vide agreement dated 09/05/2014 (effective from 01/04/2014) in a slump sale to the assessee company for a consideration of Rs.78.25 crores. - The partners of M/s. Metallurgical Services i.e. Shri Shishir Mehtra and Ms. Shifali Mehta

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: 2.1 Rejecting the value of international transaction of provision of SWD and proFor Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

Atos It Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 226/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

claim of depreciation to the extent of INR 23,23,54,949 on goodwill/intangible assets acquired as a part of acquisition of business on slump sale basis from Xerox Business Services India Private Limited (`XBSIPL'). The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to allow the entire claim ... However, we are raising a different issue here. There are certain sections of the Act which restrict allowability of depreciation acquired during slump sale. These sections of the Act have not been placed before Hon'ble SC in Smiff Securities or before Hon'ble SC/HC/ITAT in other cases cited above

Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed partly as indicated herein above

ITA 220/BANG/2021[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, CIT-DR

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three additional grounds mentioned above are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2701/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Section 43(6)(c)

Panel ('DRP') erred in not considering the actual cost (aggregating to Rs.74,94,11,161) of Goodwill purchased from Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., pursuant to slump sale, as the written down value for the purposes of section 43(6)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') and consequently

Addl.C.I.T. RG. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1479/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 143(3)

deduction was claimed @1/5th of expenditure paid in FYs 2000-01 to 2003-04. It transpired that the assessee sold its textile division under slump sale to M/s Morarjee Textiles Limited (MTL) during financial year 2003-04 and paid VRS payments to the workers of textile division. The assessee incurred ... Auditor. Concurring with the same, Ld. CIT(A) observed that Sec.35DDA does not debar the assessee to claim deduction in case of slump sale and therefore, the disallowance was to be deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 9.3 We find that the provisions of Sec.35DDA entitle