Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Zydus Wellness Ltd

C/TAXAP/346/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 346 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VersusZYDUS WELLNESS LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MR.DARSHAN R. PATEL, ADVOCATE AS CAVEATOR FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 16/04/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1.Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.10.2017 raising following question for our consideration: “Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.5,39,26,104/- on Goodwill of Rs.21,57,04,417/- ?” 2.In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has relied on its decision in case of this very assessee for the earlier assessment year. Revenue had carried such appeal before the High Court in Tax Appeal No.779 of 2017. This issue was considered by High Court in following terms: C/TAXAP/346/2018 ORDER “6. With respect to the claim of depreciation, the decision of Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply. There is no material referred to by the Assessing Officer to hold that the claim of depreciation was fictitious. If we read his entire expression in this respect, he seems to be suggesting that being an intangible asset acquisition thereof would not qualify for depreciation. If that be so, the view of the Assessing Officer was opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra). On the other hand, if the observations of the Assessing Officer can be seen as his findings that the claim itself was baseless, there was no discussion or reference to any material to enable him to come to such a conclusion.” 3.In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) ANKIT SHAH (B.N. KARIA, J)