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

iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises (vii) any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. So far as claim of depreciation in case of intangible assets falling in the category of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" is concerned, all the business or commercial rights are not by themselves assets eligible for depreciation, and that only

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

iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises (vii) any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. So far as claim of depreciation in case of intangible assets falling in the category of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" is concerned, all the business or commercial rights are not by themselves assets eligible for depreciation, and that only

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

iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises (vii) any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. So far as claim of depreciation in case of intangible assets falling in the category of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" is concerned, all the business or commercial rights are not by themselves assets eligible for depreciation, and that only

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

iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises (vii) any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. So far as claim of depreciation in case of intangible assets falling in the category of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" is concerned, all the business or commercial rights are not by themselves assets eligible for depreciation, and that only

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

iv) Under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 provides that "for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, every corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be Indian company and a company in which public is substantially interested". (v) It is settled principle of law where deeming fiction is created

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

iv) Under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 provides that "for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, every corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be Indian company and a company in which public is substantially interested". (v) It is settled principle of law where deeming fiction is created

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

iv) Under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 provides that "for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, every corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be Indian company and a company in which public is substantially interested". (v) It is settled principle of law where deeming fiction is created

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

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

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

depreciation is claimed and allowed Therefore notwithstanding that in the balance feet it is shown as investment, for the purpose of Income Tax Act, it is shown as stock-in-trad. Therefore, the value of the stocks being closely connected with the stock market, at the end of the financial year, while valuing the assets, necessarily the Bank

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

depreciation at the rate of 25% only was allowed on Circuit Test Boards. 3. Aggrieved by these disallowances and the consequential additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the same. Against denial of relief to the assessee, IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 38 assessee

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

depreciation at the rate of 25% only was allowed on Circuit Test Boards. 3. Aggrieved by these disallowances and the consequential additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the same. Against denial of relief to the assessee, IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 38 assessee

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

depreciation on goodwill is not allowable. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. 37. The next issue for adjudication is disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A of the Act on the following grounds:- Grounds relating to disallowance of expenses under section 14A: 4.1 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in disallowing expenses of INR 70,66,372 in relation