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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation of prior years against the income assessed. 21. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in granting credit of the tax deducted at source amounting to INR 51,91,605 instead of INR 83,11,493 as claimed by the Applicant in its return of income

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

119(1), any action taken in violation of it renders the subsequent\nproceedings irregular and invalid. The Revenue authority cannot claim\nimmunity by treating the instruction as merely advisory, when judicial\nprecedents have consistently upheld the binding nature of CBDT\ncirculars upon revenue authorities.\n\n14.8 We therefore hold that the last valid panchanama in this case was\ndrawn

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on the said asset should also be allowed. This is explicitly made clear by Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Act.” 5. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the reasoning given by the assessee and therefore disallowed the business losses to the tune of Rs. 5,20,16,620/- and treated the entire rental receipt

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

119(1), any action taken in violation of it renders the subsequent\nproceedings irregular and invalid. The Revenue authority cannot claim\nimmunity by treating the instruction as merely advisory, when judicial\nprecedents have consistently upheld the binding nature of CBDT\ncirculars upon revenue authorities.\n14.8 We therefore hold that the last valid panchanama in this case was\ndrawn

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

119. The Hon’ble Apex Court expounded that reading section 80 HH along with section 80A would clearly signify that deduction has to be of gross profits and gains that is before computing the income as a specified in section 30 to 43D. Thereafter honourable court held that the judgement of Motilal pesticides is erroneous in as much

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

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

M/S. THE DAVANGERE HARIHAR URBAN SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITHA,DAVANGERE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. Georgeassessment Year: 2008-09

section 119. Such circulars are meant for ensuring proper administration of the statute and they are designed to mitigate the rigours of the- application of a particular provision of the statute in certain situations by applying a beneficial interpretation of the provision in question. [Para 7] Therefore, it is clear that if an assessee adopts mercantile system of accounting

M/S NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

119 of the Act has clarified that the cost of construction on development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOP purchase may be ITA Nos.1063, 1064 & 1079/Bang/2018 M/s. Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 7 amortized and claimed as allowable expenditure. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to claim deduction

M/S NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

119 of the Act has clarified that the cost of construction on development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOP purchase may be ITA Nos.1063, 1064 & 1079/Bang/2018 M/s. Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 7 amortized and claimed as allowable expenditure. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to claim deduction

M/S NANDI ECONOMIC CORRDIOR ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

119 of the Act has clarified that the cost of construction on development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOP purchase may be ITA Nos.1063, 1064 & 1079/Bang/2018 M/s. Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 7 amortized and claimed as allowable expenditure. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to claim deduction

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

119(2)(a) dt. 20.10.2004] 9.2 The Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that the returns of income for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004- 2005 declaring business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was filed within the due dates as explained above. The Assessing Officer has only held that since the assessee has not claimed the set off of brought

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

119(2)(a) dt. 20.10.2004] 9.2 The Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that the returns of income for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004- 2005 declaring business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was filed within the due dates as explained above. The Assessing Officer has only held that since the assessee has not claimed the set off of brought

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

119(2)(a) dt. 20.10.2004] 9.2 The Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that the returns of income for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004- 2005 declaring business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was filed within the due dates as explained above. The Assessing Officer has only held that since the assessee has not claimed the set off of brought

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

119(2)(a) dt. 20.10.2004] 9.2 The Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that the returns of income for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004- 2005 declaring business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was filed within the due dates as explained above. The Assessing Officer has only held that since the assessee has not claimed the set off of brought

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; Page 8 of 23 (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

119(2)(b) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961.\nα\nThe petitioner, Sharavathy\nConductors (P.) Ltd., had\nfiled a revised return\nclaiming deduction under\nSection 80HHC, which was\nnot claimed in the original\nreturn. However, the Chief\nCommissioner of Income-\nTax rejected the petitioner's\napplication for condonation\nof delay, stating that the\nclaim was debatable and\nnot a genuine

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

119. The Hon’ble Apex Court expounded that reading section 80 HH along with section 80A would clearly signify that deduction has to be of gross profits and gains that is before computing the income as a specified in section 30 to 43D. Thereafter honourable court held that the judgement of Motilal pesticides is erroneous in as much

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 and business loss remaining unabsorbed at the end of the tax holiday period should be determined so that the same may be set off against the income post-tax holiday period. 25. Chapter VI deals with the aggregation of income and set off or carry forward of loss. Section 72(1) deals with the carry forward