M/S. SJR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2009-10

depreciation claim to the extent of Rs.5,82,576/-. However, the Assessee requested that as this mistake was apparent on the face of the record and was rectifiable by the O under section 154, the proceedings under section 263 should be dropped on this point. 2.2 As regards the aspect of incorrect allowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10

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

depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 8 of 34 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

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.

depreciation etc. commencing from the\nyear 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has\n\nPage 8 of 34\n\nto be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The\nabsence 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. However, the AO rejected the assessee’s explanation. The AO found that the license soft-wares are classified as an intangible asset as per Appendix-1 of IT Rules and as per part-B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate at 25%. The AO also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that

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. However, the AO rejected the assessee’s explanation. The AO found that the license soft-wares are classified as an intangible asset as per Appendix-1 of IT Rules and as per part-B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate at 25%. The AO also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that

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. However, the AO rejected the assessee’s explanation. The AO found that the license soft-wares are classified as an intangible asset as per Appendix-1 of IT Rules and as per part-B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate at 25%. The AO also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOUS INFO SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T.A No.63/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Nous Info Systems P. Ltd, No.1, 1St Main, 1St Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 004 .. Respondent Pan : Aaacn4584B Assessee By : Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vijaykumar N, Addl. Cit Heard On : 14.09.2016 Pronounced On : 11 .11.2016 O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman:

26 th March 2014 was issued. In response , revised return of income was filed on 24 April 2014 declaring total income of Rs.65,354,148/- after considering brought forward losses of Rs.12,378,310/- and after claiming deduction under section 10A at Rs.3,993,274/- . In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ('AO') made, inter alia, the following adjustments: • Deduction

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

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

section 37(1) of the Act notwithstanding that the liability had not been discharged in the year in which the fluctuation in the rate of foreign currency occurred. While allowing the loss due to fluctuation in the rate of exchange on the balance sheet date, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the position through following example: “19. A company imports

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

section 37(1) of the Act notwithstanding that the liability had not been discharged in the year in which the fluctuation in the rate of foreign currency occurred. While allowing the loss due to fluctuation in the rate of exchange on the balance sheet date, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the position through following example: “19. A company imports

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

section 37(1) of the Act notwithstanding that the liability had not been discharged in the year in which the fluctuation in the rate of foreign currency occurred. While allowing the loss due to fluctuation in the rate of exchange on the balance sheet date, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the position through following example: “19. A company imports

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. Here it would be relevant to mention that section 115J, the original predecessor of section 115JB also has Explanation which provides the mechanism for computing the ‘book profit’. Clause (iv) provides for the reduction of the amount of the loss or the amount of depreciation which would be required to be set off against the profit of the relevant

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. Here it would be relevant to mention that section 115J, the original predecessor of section 115JB also has Explanation which provides the mechanism for computing the ‘book profit’. Clause (iv) provides for the reduction of the amount of the loss or the amount of depreciation which would be required to be set off against the profit of the relevant

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

26, without properly examining the\nnature, utility, and duration of the software licences. Such an approach,\nin our view, is not sustainable in law. The issue whether software\nexpenditure is capital or revenue has to be decided based on the\nfunctional test and the real nature of the advantage obtained, and not\nmerely on the basis of depreciation rates prescribed

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

26,20,700 is bad in law and liable to be quashed.\n\n15. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)\n\n15. 1. The learned Assessing officer has erred in disallowing expenditure on account of non-deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.1,76,112 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n\n15. 2. The learned Assessing officer

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

26. With regard to reduction of a sum of Rs.6,63,79,683 which was share of profits received by the assessee as partner from a partnership firm which was exempt u/s. 10(2A) of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts with regard to claim u/s. 115JB are already available on record and notwithstanding

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. TARALABALU BRUHANMATT, CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. Subsequently, while computing the income for purposes of these sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

10 years equally yearly installments from the year in which it is incurred.” An amount of Rs.11,692,020/- has been debited to Profit and Loss Account as “Deferred Revenue Expenditure”. This amounts to nearly 8.28 percent of sales of this company. Reliance was made to decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in case of Teva Pharma Private