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

depreciation if the cost of the assets is not allowed as utilisations, does not make the activities of the trust as Non genuine or in violation of provision of section 11, 12 or 13

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

section 32(1) of the Act, the AO held that depreciation in the hands of the successor cannot exceed the amount what would have been allowable to the predecessor. Since no depreciation was allowable or claimed by Infosys ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 13

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

section 32(1) of the Act, the AO held that depreciation in the hands of the successor cannot exceed the amount what would have been allowable to the predecessor. Since no depreciation was allowable or claimed by Infosys ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 13

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

section 32(1) of the Act, the AO held that depreciation in the hands of the successor cannot exceed the amount what would have been allowable to the predecessor. Since no depreciation was allowable or claimed by Infosys ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 13

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in the residual category of “business or commercial rights”. The relevant observations of the High Court are as under:- “13

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: Α.Υ. Opening WDV (Rs.) Addition during the year (Rs.) Total assets (Rs.) Depreciation at 25% (Rs.) Closing WDV (Rs.) 2015 412,05,36,13

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. VISHWACHETAN FOUNDATION, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation is allowable in cases of trust on normal commercial principles, where the assessment of trusts are covered u/s 11, 12 and 13 of the I T Act, 1961 and the provisions of section

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

section 13(3) in support of which there are clear documentary evidences available in the seized material as also referred to in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the noting in the seized material and also the admission of Principal Person

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 has any bearing in determining the quantum of deduction allowable under Section 80/A of the Act? 36. In our opinion, the above question is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2009 (12) SCALE 51, held as under : "13

M/S UKN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

13 of 17 Explanation 4 to section 9(1 (vi) of the Act to clarify that payments for, inter alia. license to use computer software would qualify as royalty. During the FY 10-11, the assessee did not have the benefit of clarification brought by the respective amendment. As such, for the FY 2010-11, in light of the provisions

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(EXEMTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation was declared at ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore Page 4 of 19 Rs.6,75,81,997/-. The said return of income was thereafter selected for scrutiny with a limited purpose to examine the entitlement to the benefit of section 11 in the light of the transactions under taken with specified persons u/s. 13

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation was declared at ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore Page 4 of 19 Rs.6,75,81,997/-. The said return of income was thereafter selected for scrutiny with a limited purpose to examine the entitlement to the benefit of section 11 in the light of the transactions under taken with specified persons u/s. 13

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation was declared at ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore Page 4 of 19 Rs.6,75,81,997/-. The said return of income was thereafter selected for scrutiny with a limited purpose to examine the entitlement to the benefit of section 11 in the light of the transactions under taken with specified persons u/s. 13

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation was declared at ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore Page 4 of 19 Rs.6,75,81,997/-. The said return of income was thereafter selected for scrutiny with a limited purpose to examine the entitlement to the benefit of section 11 in the light of the transactions under taken with specified persons u/s. 13

M/S.NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , , MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 6.3 Considering the above, the Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (SC) observed and held in para 4 as under

M/S NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 6.3 Considering the above, the Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (SC) observed and held in para 4 as under

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

depreciation has any bearing in determining the quantum of deduction allowable under Section 80A of the Act? 36. In our opinion, the above question is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income tax reported in 2009 (12) SCALE 51, held as under :- "13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE- 1 , MANGALORE vs. M/S HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant M/S. Hubli Dharwad Urban Commissioner Of Development Authority, Income Tax Vs. Navanagar, (Exemptions), Hubbali. Circle – 1, Pan: Aaalh0053J Mangaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Gangadhar .J.M, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

13. In assessment the AO has restricted the depreciation claimed to Rs.5,99,848/- from Rs.18,19,753/-. This came to be disallowed in view of the decision in the case of ESCORTS Ltd., (SC) (199 ITR 43). This has been objected in this appeal. Various courts have held that, allowing depreciation on assets used in business will not amount

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 673/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007 – 08

section 148 of the Act to initiate the reassessment proceedings without appreciating that the said notice was issued by the AO beyond four years from the end of the Assessment Year ("AY") even when there was no failure on the part of the Appellant to "fully and truly" disclose all material facts relevant for assessment. 2.3 The DRP erred