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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act by observing that it cannot be said that the assessee stopped /closed the business, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal.” iii) Mula Pravara Electric Co-op. Society Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 173 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), it was held as under: “ 14.5 Legal Scope

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

depreciation\nand investment allowance. Therefore, the term profits and gains are not\nsynonymous with the term 'income'.....\nThe Apex court overruled its earlier judgement in the case of Motilal Pesticides\n(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), holding that language of section 80HH and 80M are\nmaterially different as section 80HH uses the expression \"profits and gains\" whereas\nsection 80M refers

M/S. JSW STEEL PROCESSING CENTRES LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(6), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation equal to twenty percent of the actual cost of new plant or machinery shall be allowed as deduction to those assesses engaged in the business of manufacture or production of article or thing. In the instant case, the AO and CIT (A) have only considered whether the assessee company is into the business of manufacture and not touched upon

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. Therefore, the term profits and gains are not synonymous with the term 'income'. The Apex Court overruled its earlier judgement in the case of Motilal Pesticides (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), holding that language of section 80HH and 80M are materially different as section 80HH uses the expression "profits and gains" whereas section 80M refers

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 on merits in Ground No. 3 in both the assessment years , this ground of appeals for both the assessment years have become infructuous and dismissed as same. Accordingly, this ground of appeals of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. The next common ground, Ground No. 5 is with regard to allowing relief to the assessee on the interest capitalization towards

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 on merits in Ground No. 3 in both the assessment years , this ground of appeals for both the assessment years have become infructuous and dismissed as same. Accordingly, this ground of appeals of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. The next common ground, Ground No. 5 is with regard to allowing relief to the assessee on the interest capitalization towards

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOUS INFO SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T.A No.63/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Nous Info Systems P. Ltd, No.1, 1St Main, 1St Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 004 .. Respondent Pan : Aaacn4584B Assessee By : Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vijaykumar N, Addl. Cit Heard On : 14.09.2016 Pronounced On : 11 .11.2016 O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman:

155(11A) against this intimation vide letter dated 14 February 2012 (acknowledgement of application dated 21 February 2012) as the export proceeds amounting to Rs.1,75,839/- were realised and brought into India as per section 10A of the Act. ITA.63/Bang/2016 Page - 3 2.2 Subsequently, a notice under section 148 dated 26 th March 2014 was issued. In response , revised

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

section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number

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

section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number

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

section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number

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

section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5) PRESENTLY CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years [from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. [(8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made

M/S GMR CORPORATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12

155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. (8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made

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. Therefore, the term profits and gains are not synonymous with the term 'income'. The Apex Court overruled its earlier judgement in the case of Motilal Pesticides (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), holding that language of section 80HH and 80M are materially different as section 80HH uses the expression "profits and gains" whereas section 80M refers

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

155, 158BFA sub- section (1A) of section 201, sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C, 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes @or fringe benefits or class of cases, setting ITA.828/Bang/2014 Page - 8 forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessee) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

depreciation. There will be enormous spill-over benefits to small and medium enterprises." . Page 9 of 18 11. So, the intention is very much clear that Sec. 32AC was introduced to boost the manufacturing sector vis-à-vis service sector. Particularly the intention was to boost large manufacturing firms that is why initial investment allowance is given to those manufacturing

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

155(14A) 54 Foreign tax credit of Rs. 96,55,80,804 Foreign tax credit of Rs. 96,55,80,804 includes foreign tax credit of Rs. 23,63,99,423 on income which is eligible for deduction under section 10AA. Wipro Ltd v DCIT 382 ITR 179 (Kar) Foreign tax credit relating to income eligible for deduction under 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)

155\nТахтапп.Com 606\n(Delhi)\nPrincipal\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax-7\nV.\nOptimal Media\nSolutions Ltd.\nThe case law citied by the\nAssesse, The Head Note\nwhich reads below Section\n14A of the Income-tax Act,\n1961, read with rule 8D of\nthe Income-tax Rules,\n1962 - Expenditure incurred\nin relation to income not\nincludible in total income