M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

207/- that was capitalised in the books\nof accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the\nact. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO\ndisallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions\nof section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of section

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of section

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA -BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

207/- that was capitalised in the books\nof accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the\nact. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO\ndisallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions\nof section

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 32 of the Act. 6. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 20.04.2021 in which the TP adjustment and disallowance of provision of warranty was retained. With regard to expenditure incurred on annual license fees, the Assessing Officer has not followed the directions issued by the DRP in allowing depreciation. Aggrieved

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

Depreciation on Crates 76,00,000 claimed Additional Book Profit offered 32,94,66,417 5.3 It is the contention of the appellant that the levy of interest u/s.234B and 234C the Act, for the failure to pay advance-tax on the additional book profit justified because, the appellant cannot be expected to pay Advance-tax when there

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

207 giving increase of 21.34 per cent as against 10 per cent required under the law. The condition that the increase in number of regular workmen during the year should not be less than 10 per cent of the existing workmen stood satisfied. Once this condition was satisfied, the assessee was eligible for deduction of 30 per cent additional wages

M/S. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

207 CTR 234) (Delhi HC) IT(TP)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Page 30 of 32 6. K Ramabrahmam & Sons (P) Ltd (88 ITD 48) (Visakhapatnam ITAT) 7. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd (74 TTJ 965) (Pune ITAT) 8. Manav Greys Exim (P) Ltd (75 TTJ 115) (Mumbai ITAT) 9. Sood Enterprises (41 ITD 234) (Delhi ITAT) In the above decisions interest paid under section

DCIT vs. M/S FIZA DEVELOPERS & INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2007-08

section 801A(5), un absorbed depreciation of the previous assessment year should be accounted before claim 801A deduction. By virtue of this the assessee becomes incomes ineligible for 801A deduction. 2. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.14,05,579/- made on account of bogus credits in the name of Hyder Ali, by stating that the transactions

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

207/- Disallowance of statutory payment indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income (Section 43B towards disallowance of Service Tax not paid within due date) 4.4 Regarding the first item of addition, it is mentioned in the Audit report as below under Observations / Comments / Qualifications of to Form 3CD: There has been delay

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

207/- Disallowance of statutory payment indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income (Section 43B towards disallowance of Service Tax not paid within due date) 4.4 Regarding the first item of addition, it is mentioned in the Audit report as below under Observations / Comments / Qualifications of to Form 3CD: There has been delay

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

207/- Disallowance of statutory payment indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income (Section 43B towards disallowance of Service Tax not paid within due date) 4.4 Regarding the first item of addition, it is mentioned in the Audit report as below under Observations / Comments / Qualifications of to Form 3CD: There has been delay

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act ought to be allowed.; and 14.2.2. Treating balance AMP expenditure of INR 31,02,747 as capital in nature even though it was incurred for the purpose of day-to-day business operations of the Appellant and is within the 20% threshold adopted by Learned AO making the said adjustment. The Learned

MICRO LABS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10

207 (Deduction to be a1lowed) Less Deduction u/s 35(2AB) claimed in the return of income 12,57,00,920 Excess deduction claimed to be disallowed 86,21,713 6. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) held that deduction claimed by the assessee