M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

depreciation as have been adopted for the purpose of preparing a Profit & Loss Account and laid down at its Annual General Meeting in accordance with the provisions of Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956. In this case, the Bank does not prepare any Profit & Loss Account which is laid down as per the provisions of Section

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

depreciation as have been adopted for the purpose of preparing a Profit & Loss Account and laid down at its Annual General Meeting in accordance with the provisions of Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956. In this case, the Bank does not prepare any Profit & Loss Account which is laid down as per the provisions of Section

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

5, 7 to 8) already raised in the original grounds of appeal filed along with Form No.36B along with the appeal. The additional grounds raised therein are therefore admitted for adjudication. The additional grounds viz., ground Nos.15 & 16 and 19, 21 to 23, reads as follows: “Raised as Additional Ground of appeal No.15 & 16 15. Without prejudice to the Ground

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

21. On the above identified intangible assets, the assessee claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year

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

21. On the above identified intangible assets, the assessee claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year

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

21. On the above identified intangible assets, the assessee claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year

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

5 of the judgment in Motilal Pesticides(Supra), Shri 8. Ramamurthi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both Cloth Traders and Distributors (Baroda) were cases which pertained to Section 80- M only and this Court had no occasion to consider the application of Section 80-AB with 6 reference to Section

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

21 of 64 Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners as stipulated therein) then if the other Income tax authority also agrees then the question will be resolved mutually or else it will be referred to the CBDT. So, once the Assessing Officer of an assessee is vested with the jurisdiction u/s. 124, read

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

21 of 64 Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners as stipulated therein) then if the other Income tax authority also agrees then the question will be resolved mutually or else it will be referred to the CBDT. So, once the Assessing Officer of an assessee is vested with the jurisdiction u/s. 124, read

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

5) is that the other provisions of the Act should be considered as in operation while giving effect to section 115JB. Reference to "other provisions of this Act" clearly indicates that what is provided in section 115JB should be religiously followed accordingly and anything over and above that will be subject to the other provisions

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

5) is that the other provisions of the Act should be considered as in operation while giving effect to section 115JB. Reference to "other provisions of this Act" clearly indicates that what is provided in section 115JB should be religiously followed accordingly and anything over and above that will be subject to the other provisions

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

5 of the judgment in Motilal Pesticides(Supra), Shri 8. Ramamurthi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both Cloth Traders and Distributors (Baroda) were cases which pertained to Section 80- M only and this Court had no occasion to consider the application of Section 80-AB with 6 reference to Section

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

5 to section 32 is complied with. However,\nrelying on the aforesaid Apex Court decision, while quantifying the amount of the\ndeduction u/s. 10AA in respect both Refinery SEZ and PP SEZ, the term \"profits\nand gains' would mean gross revenue receipts less actual expenses i.e excluding\ndepreciation and investment allowance, etc as the same are not actual expense

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

5 (column 8, panel A), that India is again a negative outlier in terms of the employment share in services, falling below other countries by a huge 17 percentage points in 2000. Gordon and Gupta (2004) have also observed that, unlike other countries, Indian labor's share in services employment has been flat rather than growing with income. The huge

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

5. Next ground is with regard to disallowance of additional depreciation made u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The facts of the case are that 5.1 During the year under consideration, the Assessee had claimed depreciation including additional depreciation in all aggregating to Rs. 74,43,21,086 as under: [PB — 80 and 21 (serial no. 12)] M/s. Syngene

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

21,78,480/-\nTotal\nRs. 412,05,36,132/- Rs. 3035,54,78,480/-\n21. On the above identified intangible assets, the assessee claimed\ndepreciation under section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to\nA.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner:\nΑ.Υ. Opening WDV Addition\nTotal assets Depreciation

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

21 ,235 made under Section 32 of the Act, in relation to the depreciation claimed on goodwill. 3. Addition on account of Free of Cost Assets 3.1. The learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, by confirming addition of INR 1,93,90,395 made under Section 28(iv) of the Act, in relation to the assets received

OPTO CIRCUITS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year.” 10. Reading the above sub-sections, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has misread the provisions of sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A / 10B of the I.T.Act and confirmed the disallowance without noticing these sub-sections do not mandate that the return of income should be filed within

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NSL SUGARS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

depreciation, etc., and if the gross total income of the assessee is ‘Nil’ the assessee would not be entitled to deduction under Chapter VI-A; non obstante clause in s. 80-I(6) cannot restrict the operation of ss. 80A(2) and 80B(5) which operate in different spheres and therefore, loss from the oil division of the assessee