Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 306 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation - cost of acquisition of cement unit - Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the I.T. Act - Held that:- The registered valuer also valued the assets as on 01.11.1999, the price of which was considered to be the cost of fixed asset acquired and the balance to the current assets including the current liabilities. - no reason to invoke Explanation (3) as the A.O. nowhere stated that the main purpose of such a valuation was for reduction of liability to tax. - Decided in favor of the assessee. Lump-sum payment - Deferred revenue expenses - assessee was entitled to benefit over a period of three years - held that:- lump-sum prepayment premium for restructuring of loan resulting in deduction on rate of interest is allowable as interest and that section 43B(d) also permits such deduction of payment. Depreciation on intangible goods - whether excess amount paid is goodwill - held that:- the nature of payment has to be considered and terminology used in the books of account does not determine the allowability of claim. - held that:- assessee has made a vague claim. On the one hand it states the excess payment made, over and above the value of tangible asset acquired, is for licences, quotas, business rights etc. and whereas on the other hand it states the excess amount should be taken as that paid for factors like locational advantage, contracts with dealers and customers attached to the business etc. This second limb, in our view cannot be a business or commercial right but only goodwill. While stating facts, alternate or without prejudice stand cannot be taken. The assessee is supposed to know exactly the purpose for which the amount is paid. While tangible assets were valued, intangible assets were not valued in this case - held as goodwill - decided against the assessee.
|