आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.981/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rexel India Private Limited, DCIT, PUNE Office No. 407-414, 4^th Floor, Insignia, 46, Sasoon Road, Vs.

Pune-411001 Maharashtra PAN AAFCR6724C Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil Pathak Department by Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT Date of hearing 05/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 05/05/2025 आदशे / ORDER PER MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

12.03.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2016-17.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising pursuant to amalgamation of Yantra Automation Private Limited ('YAPL') and AD Electronics Private Limited ('ADEPL') with the Appellant 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC has erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to INR 14,98,78,251 on goodwill arising pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation of YAPL and ADEPL with the Appellant.

1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC has erred in concluding that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is not allowable in light of sixth proviso to section 32(1) and explanation (3) thereof; read with explanation (7) of section 43(1) and explanation 2 of Section 43(6)

without taking into consideration the detailed technical submissions filed by the Appellant.

1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC failed to appreciate that the appellant had followed purchase method for accounting the amalgamation and the consideration paid in excess of net value of the assets and liabilities taken over of the amalgamating companies was rightly treated by the appellant as goodwill and hence, the depreciation on the same ought to have been allowed.

1.4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC has erred in not following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smifs Securities Limited [2012] 348 ITR 302 (SC) and the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Chowgule & Company Private Limited (2016) (95 CCH 21)

(Bom)

2. Allowance of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation not granted

2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC has erred in not adjudicating on the ground taken by the Appellant for grant of allowance of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation aggregating to INR 4,74,83,007 incurred by the Appellant in earlier years.

3. Credit of advance tax paid by YAPL and ADEPL not granted to the Appellant

3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC has erred in not adjudicating on the ground taken by the Appellant for grant of credit of advance tax paid by YAPL and ADEPL amounting to INR 1,65,00,000/- and INR 86,00,000/-

respectively to the Appellant.

4. Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS') credit of YAPL and ADEPL not granted to the Appellant

4.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC has erred in not adjudicating on the ground taken by the Appellant for grant of TDS credit of YAPL and ADEPL amounting to INR 18,88,630 and INR 7,74,946 respectively to the Appellant.”

3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 24.01.2012. It is a subsidiary of Relex Holdings Netherlands B.V. and is primarily engaged in the business of automation products and services. For A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed its return of income on 21.11.2016 on a consolidated basis declaring a loss of Rs. 9,02,23,322/-. The case of the assessee was selected