M/S INTERNATIONAL STONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation existing for set off, the first ground of appeal is dismissed as purely academic and not maintainable. ITA Nos. 539, 1474 & 1475 and 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 28 10. The second ground of appeal raised by the assessee before us is as follows:- “2. THIRD PARTY/DEEMED EXPORT a) The A.O. was not correct in not considering Deemed Export

M/S INTERNATIONAL STONES I P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation existing for set off, the first ground of appeal is dismissed as purely academic and not maintainable. ITA Nos. 539, 1474 & 1475 and 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 28 10. The second ground of appeal raised by the assessee before us is as follows:- “2. THIRD PARTY/DEEMED EXPORT a) The A.O. was not correct in not considering Deemed Export

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL STONES INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation existing for set off, the first ground of appeal is dismissed as purely academic and not maintainable. ITA Nos. 539, 1474 & 1475 and 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 28 10. The second ground of appeal raised by the assessee before us is as follows:- “2. THIRD PARTY/DEEMED EXPORT a) The A.O. was not correct in not considering Deemed Export

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL STONES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation existing for set off, the first ground of appeal is dismissed as purely academic and not maintainable. ITA Nos. 539, 1474 & 1475 and 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 28 10. The second ground of appeal raised by the assessee before us is as follows:- “2. THIRD PARTY/DEEMED EXPORT a) The A.O. was not correct in not considering Deemed Export

M/S |NTERNATIONAL STONES I P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation existing for set off, the first ground of appeal is dismissed as purely academic and not maintainable. ITA Nos. 539, 1474 & 1475 and 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 28 10. The second ground of appeal raised by the assessee before us is as follows:- “2. THIRD PARTY/DEEMED EXPORT a) The A.O. was not correct in not considering Deemed Export

ASST.C.I.T., BELLARY vs. M/S HOTHUR TRADERS 100% EOU, BELLARY

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita No.32/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, No.85,6,7&8, Infantry Road, Cantonment, Bellary. . Respondent Pan –Aaefh7705H. Co No.55/Bang/2016 (By Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Nagendra Prasad, Cit Respondent By : Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2018

10B(2)(ii) and (iii) referred to by the AO in the case of HI is again without any basis. This finding of the Assessing Officer is totally erroneous and contrary to law. The Assessing Officer has ignored the legal position and proceeded to hold that the assessee contravened sections 1OB(2)(ii) & (iii) of the Act. It should

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

Depreciation as per 22570821 Nil Nil 22570821 Nil 22570821 books Add: Inadmissible expenses 327387 3512007 12030164 12030164 Addition u/s.92E — 8190770 Transfer Pricing adjustment Less: Depredation as per 2046496 Nil Nil 2046496 Nil 2046496 IT Act Others Profits from business 65874983 (51401852) 8186989 22660120 215968 22444151 Less: Deduction u/s.10A 62614737 6931232 69545969 - 69545969 It is noticed from schedule

BIOCON LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

depreciation) under Section 35(2AB) of the Act to the units claiming deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The undisputed

M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

section 10B of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs.18,95,68,278/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. On going through the details furnished, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown unabsorbed depreciation

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

section 10B of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs.18,95,68,278/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. On going through the details furnished, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown unabsorbed depreciation

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

section 10B of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs.18,95,68,278/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. On going through the details furnished, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown unabsorbed depreciation

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

section 10B(4) of the Act. ” 16. We find that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of GE BE Pvt. Ltd., has considered the decision of the Special Bench in coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal’s order in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2002-03 is not applicable for the assessment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEM (I) (P) LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

section 10B(4) of the Act. ” 16. We find that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of GE BE Pvt. Ltd., has considered the decision of the Special Bench in coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal’s order in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2002-03 is not applicable for the assessment

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

section 10B(4) of the Act. ” 16. We find that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of GE BE Pvt. Ltd., has considered the decision of the Special Bench in coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal’s order in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2002-03 is not applicable for the assessment

OPTO CIRCUITS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year.” 10. Reading the above sub-sections, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has misread the provisions of sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A / 10B

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S APOTEX PHARMACHEM INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

section 10B of the Act. Post such deduction, the Company had computed the Profits and gains from business & profession at NIL, after setting off the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation

M/S RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. No.104A, 4Th Cross, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-561229. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacr 6948 R Vs. Deputy Commisioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

depreciation. 20.2 With a view to rationalize the existing tax incentives in respect of such units sub-section (6) in sections 10A and 10B

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S AURIGENE DISCOVERY TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 10B without setting off unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years without appreciating the fact that the decision of the Karnataka

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

Depreciation allowed : Rs.(1,19.50,467) TP Adjustment : Rs.20,32,95,392/- Aggrieved by the additions proposed by the Ld.AO, assessee filed objections before the DRP. 3.2 The DRP held that software expenses tantamount to royalty i.e. covered by explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and are subject to TDS u/s 194J. The DRP directed