M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

depreciation u/s 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. With regard to ground No. 1, the facts in brief borne out from the orders of the authorities below are that

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

depreciation u/s 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. With regard to ground No. 1, the facts in brief borne out from the orders of the authorities below are that

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

depreciation u/s 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. With regard to ground No. 1, the facts in brief borne out from the orders of the authorities below are that

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

depreciation u/s 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. With regard to ground No. 1, the facts in brief borne out from the orders of the authorities below are that

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

194I nor 194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In so far as the applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of lease rentals paid for lease of equipment is concerned, it is seen

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

194I nor 194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In so far as the applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of lease rentals paid for lease of equipment is concerned, it is seen

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation @ 60% which worked out to Rs.4.21 crores. Though the balance amount works out to Rs.2.81 crores, yet the A.O. has computed net disallowance at Rs.1.31 crore.. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance by following his order passed for assessment year 2010-11. 6.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that identical payments made in assessment year

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation @ 60% which worked out to Rs.4.21 crores. Though the balance amount works out to Rs.2.81 crores, yet the A.O. has computed net disallowance at Rs.1.31 crore.. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance by following his order passed for assessment year 2010-11. 6.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that identical payments made in assessment year

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 were invoked and made an addition of the total purchases of the fixed assets at Rs. 17,80,37,774/-. The issue was challenged before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel by objection no. 15 where the objection of the Assessee was allowed, and Ld. Assessing Officer was directed to examine the facts and consider the contentions made

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

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation of Rs.3,63,88,324/-. 117. Ld AO is aggrieved with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of access depreciation claimed by the assessee on motor vehicles. The brief fact of the case shows that in the depreciation schedule prepared for the purpose of income tax the assessee company has claimed excess depreciation on vehicles purchased

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation of Rs.3,63,88,324/-. 117. Ld AO is aggrieved with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of access depreciation claimed by the assessee on motor vehicles. The brief fact of the case shows that in the depreciation schedule prepared for the purpose of income tax the assessee company has claimed excess depreciation on vehicles purchased

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

depreciation in respect of such assets even though it has been held that lease rentals are capital expenditure in nature. 6.5. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in proposing to disallow the lease rentals under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by concluding that the lease rentals, if treated to be as revenue expenses would

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Depreciation on assets taken on finance lease - Rs. 13.29 crores (Rs.13.26 crores on Vehicles + Rs. 0.03 crores on Office Equipment debited in the books of accounts, note 2.1 Fixed Assets of the financial statements). Thus in total assessee has disallowed Rs.16.78 crores (Rs.3.49 crores +Rs.13.29 crores). As against such a disallowance it has claimed