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. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5,69,16

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO\ndisallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA-\n2 and added the amount of ₹5,69,16

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, as laid down in several decisions which we will refer to while dealing with claim of depreciation on goodwill. We hold and direct accordingly and allow Gr.No.16

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO\ndisallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA-\n2 and added the amount of ₹5,69,16

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

16. The fourth ground of appeal challenges the direction of the CIT(A) to reduce a sum of Rs.1,31,59, 000/- being lower of brought forward loss or depreciation from book profit under section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

16. The fourth ground of appeal challenges the direction of the CIT(A) to reduce a sum of Rs.1,31,59, 000/- being lower of brought forward loss or depreciation from book profit under section

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

depreciation on software purchase. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. (supra) and accordingly held that the software purchase cost is in the nature of royalty and hence allowable as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, he has directed the A.O. to disallow the entire cost

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

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)

Section 32(2) of the Act. In the present case also, the assessee company is in existence under the Companies Act and it has to fulfill various statutory compliances and it is not disputed that the assessee is earning income from F & O business and other sources. The same was offered for tax. Unless and until the assessee is ceased

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

16. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the working capital adjustment as claimed by the Assessee should be allowed. We hold and direct accordingly.” 19. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of Huawei Technologies India (P) Ltd. (supra), we direct the AO to allow the working capital adjustment and re-compute

BOSCH GLOBAL SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(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 or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any previous year.” 15.3 The relevant clause in present case is clause (iii) according to which any office appliance including the computer or computer software shall not be included in the “New asset” for purpose of this section. On careful perusal

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 5 Addition under section 14A of the Act 5.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making an addition under section 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") 5.2 The Learned CIT(A) has erred

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

depreciation 16 - 30] claim on goodwill, under section 32 of the Act. 13.3. The lower authorities erred in alleging that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BANGALORE vs. M/S KAWASKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Hence according to her, assessee having failed to deduct tax at source on the payments effected, though such payments were capitalised, depreciation claimed could also not be allowed. 06. Per contra, Ld. AR once again relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in SKOL Breweries Ltd. (supra). 07. We have perused the orders