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

4 of 28 depreciation of Rs.26,09,261/- against the current year profits. On verification of previous year records it was found that no c/f unabsorbed depreciation is available as per the order passed u/s 143(3) for AV 2808-09 in view of the same, no set off of b/f depreciation is allowed for the current year

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

4 of 28 depreciation of Rs.26,09,261/- against the current year profits. On verification of previous year records it was found that no c/f unabsorbed depreciation is available as per the order passed u/s 143(3) for AV 2808-09 in view of the same, no set off of b/f depreciation is allowed for the current year

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

4 of 28 depreciation of Rs.26,09,261/- against the current year profits. On verification of previous year records it was found that no c/f unabsorbed depreciation is available as per the order passed u/s 143(3) for AV 2808-09 in view of the same, no set off of b/f depreciation is allowed for the current year

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

4 of 28 depreciation of Rs.26,09,261/- against the current year profits. On verification of previous year records it was found that no c/f unabsorbed depreciation is available as per the order passed u/s 143(3) for AV 2808-09 in view of the same, no set off of b/f depreciation is allowed for the current year

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

4 of 28 depreciation of Rs.26,09,261/- against the current year profits. On verification of previous year records it was found that no c/f unabsorbed depreciation is available as per the order passed u/s 143(3) for AV 2808-09 in view of the same, no set off of b/f depreciation is allowed for the current year

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

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

4 support the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in allowing it deduction under section 10B of the Act and which have been addressed by our dismissal of the aforesaid grounds raised by revenue on this issue, there is no requirement to adjudicate C.O's of the assessee as they are rendered infructuous." 12. The above conclusions arrived

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

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 facts on this issue, as per the record before us, is that the assessee incurs R&D expenditure which are claimed as revenue in nature and are shown as a line item of deduction in the unit-wise profit

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

depreciation is in the nature of business expenditure. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to reduce expenses on communication, travel and other expenses incurred in foreign currency both from export turnover and as well as from total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

depreciation is in the nature of business expenditure. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to reduce expenses on communication, travel and other expenses incurred in foreign currency both from export turnover and as well as from total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction

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

4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section 7 ITA No.1316/Bang/2017. M/s.Opto Circuits (India) Limited. (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

10B reports late and therefore violated the provisions of section 12A of the Act. v. Regarding loan to Kuriakose Trust , assessee submitted that the transaction is through banking channel and is recorded in the books of account, Assessee submit that it is the statement of a disgruntled ex-Trustee, which assessee trust has nothing

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

depreciation of earlier years. Further, the Company reported a net taxable income of INR 19.28 lacs including therein the interest income from deposits. In such revised computation, the Appellant had revised the amount of deduction eligible to be claimed under section 10B of the Act, by applying the correct formula to calculate such deduction by taking the deduction for both

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

4 of the assessment order, where it was mentioned that the tax deducted in respect of the payment was made over to the IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 54 of 202 Government in the subsequent year and, therefore, depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred

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

4 of the assessment order, where it was mentioned that the tax deducted in respect of the payment was made over to the IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 54 of 202 Government in the subsequent year and, therefore, depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred

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 for a particular year, then the losses/unabsorbed depreciation in that year will not be considered while allowing deduction u/s. 10B of the Act for the eligible period when deduction is claimed in a subsequent AY. In view of the above legal position, we find no merit in the ground No.8 raised by the revenue. Accordingly the same