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

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

M/S. A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION,MANGALORE vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

Depreciation debited to Income & Expenditure Account of Rs. 13,47,71,387/-; and [b] Donation & Charity debited to Income & Expenditure Account of Rs. 12,24,78,046/-. 9. In course of the assessment proceedings, the AO sought for various details and particulars, which were furnished. It was noticed by the AO that the appellant had made a payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

37. The question before the High Court and the Supreme Court in the case of Vishweshwaraiah Institute of Technology University (supra) was in the context of allowabity of exemption u/s 10(23)(iiab) of the Act. The Visvesvraya Technological University (VTU) was constituted under the Visveswaraiah Technological University Act, 1994. It discharged functions earlier performed by the Department of Technical

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

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 (other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or (iia) the amount of depreciation debited to the profit and loss account (excluding the depreciation on account of revaluation of assets); or (iib) the amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve

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 (other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or (iia) the amount of depreciation debited to the profit and loss account (excluding the depreciation on account of revaluation of assets); or (iib) the amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve

B RUDRA GOUDA ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

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

depreciation suo-moto under section 32(1) of the Act. 3. As regards disallowance of Reclamation & Rehabilitation expenses: 3.1 The Learned Assessing officer and Learned CIT(A) have failed to appreciate that the amount deducted by Central Empower Committee (CEC) of Rs.14,54,31,191/- is nothing but diversion of income by overriding title as the stock is confiscated

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY vs. SRI B RUDRA GOWDA , BELLARY

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

depreciation suo-moto under section 32(1) of the Act. 3. As regards disallowance of Reclamation & Rehabilitation expenses: 3.1 The Learned Assessing officer and Learned CIT(A) have failed to appreciate that the amount deducted by Central Empower Committee (CEC) of Rs.14,54,31,191/- is nothing but diversion of income by overriding title as the stock is confiscated

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

37 of the Act.\n3.1 The assessee, in the application for admission of additional\nground of appeal, argued that the issues raised may not arise from the\nappellate order but the same are fundamental and necessary to correctly\nassessee the tax liability to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the\nassessee's learned AR requested that the additional ground

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

depreciation on software expenses (disallowed by the AO in the earlier years considering the same as capital in nature) amounting to INR 3,970,944. 3.5 The NFAC erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to INR 15,95,29,740. IT(TP)A No.413/Bang/2022 Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Herbalife International India Vs. Dcit - 11(4), Private Limited, Bengaluru. Pardhanani Wilshire #14, Commissariat Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaach 8025 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.08.2018 Of Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Nos.2 To 12 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

37,49,616/- would be eligible for depreciation @10% either due to fact that the expenditure forms part of the building eligible for deprecation @10% or the expenditure forms part of the furniture and fittings including electrical fittings eligible for depreciation @10%. Page 11 of 16 4.17 Kolkata: — In relation to expenditure of Rs.11,17,125/- incurred in Kolkata

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

10, 2018, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) and section 92CD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 4(1)(2), Bangalore ('ACIT'), be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 2. Reliance on the Draft Assessment Order

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

10. Section 135 of Companies Act, 2013 requires companies with CSR obligations, with effect from 01/04/2014. Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 inserted new Explanation 2 to sub- section (1) of section 37, so as to clarify that for purposes of sub- section (1) of section 37, any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

37 of the Act v) Disallowance of expenditure incurred towards purchase of application software vi) Disallowance of provision made towards leave availment under section 43B(f) of the Act vii) Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act viii) Disallowance of interest paid under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ix) Disallowance of forex loss on forward

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

37 of the Act.\n3.1 The assessee, in the application for admission of additional\nground of appeal, argued that the issues raised may not arise from the\nappellate order but the same are fundamental and necessary to correctly\nassessee the tax liability to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the\nassessee's learned AR requested that the additional ground