Four Imp Verdicts On Appt Of Tribunal Members, S. 14A/ Rule 8D And S. 32 Depreciation On Intangible Assets

Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)

Sales-tax/VAT Tribunal: (i) Only legally qualified, judicially trained and experienced persons can be appointed Members. A Chartered Accountant or Commissioner cannot be appointed unless they have expertise in the subject. (ii) The Selection Committee should be headed by either a sitting Judge or a retired Judge of the High Court. (iii) It is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide proper infrastructure to the Courts, Tribunals and Judicial Officers. Financial constraint on the part of the Government is no ground to deny the adequate infrastructure to the Courts and Tribunal. (iv) For complete transparency, the Tribunal will have to ensure that its records are digitized and all orders, short or long, are uploaded on a dedicated website   



For bringing about a complete transparency, the Tribunal will have to ensure that its record is digitized and all orders, short or long, are uploaded on a dedicated website. It will be ideal if the President of Tribunal looks into the eCourt Project Phase I and II initiated by the eCommittee of the Apex Court which is being implemented in all civil and criminal Courts in the State. Needless to add that the State Government will provide necessary infrastructure to ensure that the record of the Tribunal is digitized and the aforesaid projects are implemented in substance. We make it clear that it will be open for the learned President of the Tribunal to seek assistance of the High Court team headed by the Central Project Coordinator for implementation of the project of digitization. Till the larger project is implemented, the President will have to ensure that all orders passed by the Tribunal, small or big, are uploaded on the website

Pest Control India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 14A/ Rule 8D: By no stretch of imagination can s. 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. Also, the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited in ITA.No. 117/15 dated 25.02.2015 held that by no stretch of imagination can section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. Similarly, Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of PCIT v. Empire Package Private Limited in ITA.No. 415/2015 held that disallowance should not exceed exempt income

Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)

S. 32/ 43(6): The slump price paid to acquire a business has to be bifurcated between tangible and intangible assets for purposes of allowing depreciation. If the allocation is done in a systematic manner by an independent valuer and there is no fallacy, the AO is bound by the allocation. If an asset forms part of the block of assets and depreciation is allowed, it loses its identity and depreciation cannot be denied in a later year
The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue also was of the view that no part of slump price is to be attributed to the know-how, patents and trademarks, since the same has not been acquired by the assessee. Even if we accept the said stand of learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, ultimately after the slump price has been attributed first to the value of tangible assets, then the balance is to be attributed to intangible assets and once the same is done and whether it is under the umbrella of know-how, trademarks, patents or goodwill, it makes no difference since all these are covered under the umbrella of intangible assets, which are eligible for claim of depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The goodwill is also an intangible asset eligible for said depreciation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC)

DCIT vs. Caparo Engineering India P. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

S. 32(1)(ii) Depreciation on non-compete fee: The AO should consider whether the verdict in Sharp Business System 211 TM 576 (Del) that non-compete rights are not intangible assets for depreciation can apply to a case where there is no joint venture between the person paying the non-competition fee and the recipient and both parties are outsiders. Law laid down in Nat Steel Equipments vs. CCE AIR 1988 SC 631 on the meaning of the term "similar" to be considered
The Assessing Officer shall redecide this issue afresh after comparing the facts in the case of the assessee with the case of Delhi High Court in Sharp Business Systems (supra) in accordance with law and give clear finding how the case of assessee is covered or not covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Systems. We may point out that in the case of the assessee there was no joint venture between the person paying the non competition fee and the person receiving the non competition fee. Both the parties were entirely outsiders and the time of the continuity of the agreement was also 10 years not 07 years. We also direct the Assessing Officer that while considering the decision of Delhi High Court he should also consider the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nat Steel Equipments vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in AIR 1988 SC 631 as in our opinion this decision will also have bearing in the case of the assessee