Issue/Justification
The proviso to section 32 provides that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause (xiii) and clause (xiv) of section 47 or section 170 or to the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamation, or to the de-merged company and the resulting company in the case of de-merger, as the case may be, shall not exceed in any previous year the deduction calculated at the prescribed rates as if the succession or the amalgamation or the de-merger, as the case may be, had not taken place, and such deduction shall be apportioned between the predecessor and the successor, or the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company, or the de-merged company and the resulting company, as the case may be, in the ratio of the number of days for which the assets were used by them.
The following issues may be considered for appropriate amendment in the law :
(a) An issue arises whether depreciation can be claimed on the basis of proportionate number of days by the transferor and the transferee company in case of slump sale considering the proviso to section 32 read with section 170 of the Act.
(b) As per the current provisions of proviso to section 32 the depreciation can be claimed on the basis of proportionate number of days for which the assets were used by the predecessor and the successor, or the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company, or the demerged company and the resulting company, as the case may be. Due to practical and administrative difficulties, there may be a time gap between holding of the asset and using the asset so transferred. To avoid genuine difficulties in such cases, instead of the words, “used by them”, the words “held by them” may be substituted in the proviso to section 32.
Suggestion
a) Section 32 may be amended to clarify the legal position as to whether depreciation can be claimed on the basis of proportionate number of days by the transferor and the transferee company in case of slump sale also considering the proviso to section 32 read with section 170 of the Act.
b) Due to practical and administrative difficulties, there may be a time gap between holding of the asset and using the asset so transferred. To avoid genuine difficulties in such cases, instead of the words, “used by them”, the words “held by them” may be substituted in the proviso to section 32.
(SUGGESTIONS TO REDUCE / MINIMIZE LITIGATIONS)
