M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

Business (Unabsorbed Total Deduction Remaining Set off of Income Total ment income / depreciation) claimed u/s business business from other income

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

Business (Unabsorbed Total Deduction Remaining Set off of Income Total ment income / depreciation) claimed u/s business business from other income

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

Depreciation as per Income tax act -Refer Annexure No.- 55292 Page 3 of 12 TOTAL DEDUCTIONS-P3 471931352 Income From Business/Profession-B1=(P1+P2+P3) - 52016620 3. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 3.1 Interest on Others 1. Interest from Income-tax-Interest on IT refund : 2127420 212740 Income from Other Sources 2127420 Unadjusted Current Year loss Carried Forward: 1. Business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation under Business and accepted the income disclosed in the original return of income filed for the AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12. 14. On appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

income of the assessee. It was submitted that the deduction under section 10AA of the Act should be computed in respect of profits of SEZ unit without setting off the losses of other units as per the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Yokogawa India

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

business’ and not `income from property’; (ii) Interest of Rs.7,03,43,585 may be deducted while computing the income; (iii) Depreciation

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation is subjected to the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) or not ?. We quote the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) as under: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation is subjected to the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) or not ?. We quote the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) as under: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

income of the assessee. It was\nsubmitted that the deduction under section 10AA of the Act should be\ncomputed in respect of profits of SEZ unit without setting off the losses of\nother units as per the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case\nof CIT v Yokogawa India Ltd [2017] 391 ITR 274.\n\nThe

M/S. TATA ELXSI LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), , BENGALURU

business of a hotel, to which this section\napplies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section,\nbe allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such\nprofits and gains of an amount equal to twenty per cent thereof.\"\nThe assessee in that case claimed deduction on gross profits (without depreciation

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

depreciation and investment allowance. To put it otherwise, as per the Department, the income of the assessee is to computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 28 to 44DB which are the provisions for computation of 'income' under the head 'profits and gains of business

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

depreciation and investment allowance. To put it otherwise, as per the Department, the income of the assessee is to computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 28 to 44DB which are the provisions for computation of 'income' under the head 'profits and gains of business

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NSL SUGARS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

depreciation etc relating to the eligible business may actually have been set off against the profits of the assessee from the non eligible business or other sources. Thus the gross total income

M/S NSL SUGARS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

depreciation etc relating to the eligible business may actually have been set off against the profits of the assessee from the non eligible business or other sources. Thus the gross total income

BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

depreciation be deleted.” 7. The Ld A.R submitted that the issue arising for consideration of the Tribunal in these three appeals are:- (a) whether the business activity of the assessee is set up or not? (b) whether the expenses incurred after setting up of business is allowable as deduction? (c) Whether the interest income

M/S BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

depreciation be deleted.” 7. The Ld A.R submitted that the issue arising for consideration of the Tribunal in these three appeals are:- (a) whether the business activity of the assessee is set up or not? (b) whether the expenses incurred after setting up of business is allowable as deduction? (c) Whether the interest income

M/S BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

depreciation be deleted.” 7. The Ld A.R submitted that the issue arising for consideration of the Tribunal in these three appeals are:- (a) whether the business activity of the assessee is set up or not? (b) whether the expenses incurred after setting up of business is allowable as deduction? (c) Whether the interest income

PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

business” as claimed by the assessee. While doing so, the AO relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143, wherein it has been held that income derived by the assessee by letting out the furnished premises on monthly rental basis to various parties