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

10,92,957 in relation to income on which deduction under section 10AA was claimed) once the dispute is settled 5. Levy of interest under section 234B: 5.1. The levy of interest under section 234B is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. Prayer: 6.1. Based on the above grounds and other grounds adduced at the time

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.

10,92,957 in relation to income on which deduction under\nsection 10AA was claimed) once the dispute is settled\n\n5.\n\nLevy of interest under section 234B:\n\n5. 1. The levy of interest under section 234B is bad in law and liable to be\nquashed.\n\n6.\n\nPrayer:\n\n6. 1. Based on the above grounds

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Tata Elxsi Ltd., Itpb Road, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. … Appellant Pan:Aaact 7872 Q Vs

depreciation etc. commencing from ITA No.1222, 1516 & 1517/Bang/2017 Page 10 of 13 the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Tata Elxsi Ltd., Itpb Road, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. … Appellant Pan:Aaact 7872 Q Vs

depreciation etc. commencing from ITA No.1222, 1516 & 1517/Bang/2017 Page 10 of 13 the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Tata Elxsi Ltd., Itpb Road, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. … Appellant Pan:Aaact 7872 Q Vs

depreciation etc. commencing from ITA No.1222, 1516 & 1517/Bang/2017 Page 10 of 13 the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

10 of AS-11 such adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed assets was not possible, particularly in the light of section 43(1). The unamended section 43A nowhere required as condition precedent for making necessary adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed asset that there should be actual payment of the increased/decreased liability as a consequence

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

10 of AS-11 such adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed assets was not possible, particularly in the light of section 43(1). The unamended section 43A nowhere required as condition precedent for making necessary adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed asset that there should be actual payment of the increased/decreased liability as a consequence

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

20 23,80,92,482 Vehicles 15 2,86,667 Building 10 8,51,00,156 Furniture and fittings 10 1,11,18,409 60 1,75,36,139 Computers Total depreciation 74,43,21,086 Assessment proceedings 5.2 The AO at para 4 of the order observed that the Assessee was asked to furnish unit-wise details

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation allowance, the issue was partly ITA Nos.1283/Bang/2016 & 169 to 171/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 22 allowed. Accordingly, the Appellate Order was passed on 28.04.2016. 12. The ld. AR, Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA, submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority in Civil Appeal No21762

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation allowance, the issue was partly ITA Nos.1283/Bang/2016 & 169 to 171/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 22 allowed. Accordingly, the Appellate Order was passed on 28.04.2016. 12. The ld. AR, Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA, submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority in Civil Appeal No21762

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

20. Ground No.5 of the appeal of the assessee raised in ITA Nos.1980 & 1981/Bang/2018 is with regard to disallowance of depreciation on computer. 21. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchase computer software on which it claimed depreciation. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on the ground that the assessee had not deducted tax at source. Since

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

20. Ground No.5 of the appeal of the assessee raised in ITA Nos.1980 & 1981/Bang/2018 is with regard to disallowance of depreciation on computer. 21. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchase computer software on which it claimed depreciation. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on the ground that the assessee had not deducted tax at source. Since

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

20. Ground No.5 of the appeal of the assessee raised in ITA Nos.1980 & 1981/Bang/2018 is with regard to disallowance of depreciation on computer. 21. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchase computer software on which it claimed depreciation. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on the ground that the assessee had not deducted tax at source. Since

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

10(23C) or other provisions of the Act. H. Application of interpretation . Page 17 of 30 At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the conclusions arrived at by way of this judgment, neither precludes any of the assessees (whether statutory, or non-statutory) advancing objects of general public utility, from claiming exemption, nor the taxing authorities from