ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 10A of the Act, where the phrase “export of articles or things or computer software” is used meaning thereby the computer software is different from article or things. The AO concluded that computer software is distinct from an article or thing, and additional depreciation is allowable only on plant and machinery installed by an assessee engaged in the manufacture

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

depreciation and investment allowance, etc as the same are not actual expense and hence need to be excluded. The appellant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has provided the interpretation of the wording "profits and gains" for the purpose of section 80HH. As the wording of section 1OAA is para materia to the wording in section 80HH, the ratio

MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

112. The ‘book profits’ under Section 115JB of the Act was determined at Rs.1,66,60,438 as under :- Profits before tax as per P&L Account : Rs.2,05,86,685. Add 1)Income tax paid Rs.24,19,800. 2)Expenses related to exempt income : Rs.86,29,205 Rs.1,10,49,005. Rs.3,14,35,690. Less i)Income

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MAKINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

112. The ‘book profits’ under Section 115JB of the Act was determined at Rs.1,66,60,438 as under :- Profits before tax as per P&L Account : Rs.2,05,86,685. Add 1)Income tax paid Rs.24,19,800. 2)Expenses related to exempt income : Rs.86,29,205 Rs.1,10,49,005. Rs.3,14,35,690. Less i)Income

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

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

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

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

depreciation under the said section. He submitted that there is no dispute that these computers are installed in the office premises of assessee. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ESI vs. Reliable Software Systems Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2012] 5 AIR BOM. R 795. He submitted that the said

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

depreciation and investment allowance, etc as the same are not actual expense and hence need to be excluded. The appellant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has provided the interpretation of the wording "profits and gains" for the purpose of section 80HH. As the wording of section 1OAA is para materia to the wording in section 80HH, the ratio

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

depreciation solely relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Indian Hotels Co., Ltd V. ITO (2000) 112 Taxmann 46 (SC). The Ld. AR submitted that the decision of Supreme Court was in the context of deductions under the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

depreciation solely relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Indian Hotels Co., Ltd V. ITO (2000) 112 Taxmann 46 (SC). The Ld. AR submitted that the decision of Supreme Court was in the context of deductions under the provisions of section

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.” 93. It has been submitted that factually there is no change for year under consideration as compared to assessment year 2009- 10. 94. Respectfully following the view taken hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the Ld.AO in deleting the disallowance made under section 40 (a) (ia). Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands dismissed

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

112 ALP Interest rate 5.39 TP Adjustment (interest chargeable for 335 days) 7,29,62,864 61. In this regard, the learned AR made the following submissions in this regard – (i) The inclusion in the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act of the expression ‘receivables’ does not mean that every item of ‘receivables’ appearing in the accounts

M/S. PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

112 pages.\n2.5 The solitary issue that is raised whether the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC\nis justified in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 80G of the Act for\ndonations/contributions made towards its corporate social\nresponsibility especially when the assessee company suo-motto\ndisallowed the claim of expenditure U/s 37 of the Act.\n3.\nBefore

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\Nappellant\Nrespondent\N\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N: 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals\Nare Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together And\Ndisposed 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\Nfor The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee\Nhas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N1.

section\n40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.1,76,112 is bad in law and liable to be quashed.\n\n16. Depreciation

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.

section 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.1,76,112 is bad in law and liable to be quashed.\n\n16. Depreciation

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

112]. In this case the Hon'ble ITAT held that computer software was tangible asset eligible for depreciation @ 60%. In the result, the Automation software expenses of Rs. 135,52,51,594/- are held to be capital in nature. The amount as claimed in P 86 L a/c is disallowed and added back. Instead, the assessee is allowed depreciation

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

112]. In this case the Hon'ble ITAT held that computer software was tangible asset eligible for depreciation @ 60%. In the result, the Automation software expenses of Rs. 135,52,51,594/- are held to be capital in nature. The amount as claimed in P 86 L a/c is disallowed and added back. Instead, the assessee is allowed depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

112 (Karn.), wherein held that “where assessee\ncompany did not have exempt income, no disallowance can be\nmade u/s 14A of the Act.” Being so, in the assessment year 2011-\n12, no exempted income earned by assessee, there cannot be any\ndisallowance u/s 14A of the Act.\n7. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos.780