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 234D of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 61. Coming to issue raised through additional ground of appeal regarding allowances of foreign tax as business expenditure. 62. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

depreciation at the rate of 25%. 8.2 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, brand building expenses of Rs. 33,65,47,924/- is to be fully allowed as deduction as claimed by the appellant. 9.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) – I, Bangalore has erred in confirming disallowance under section 14A amounting

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 15.2. The learned

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 15.2. The learned

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 15.2. The learned

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 15.2. The learned

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 15.2. The learned

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 15.2. The learned

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 15.2. The learned

M/S. BIRLASOFT LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD.,),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Birlasoft Ltd. (Formerly Known As Kpit Technologies Ltd.) The Assistant # 35 & 36, Rajiv Commissioner Gandhi Infotech Park, Of Income Tax, Phase – 1, Midc Circle – 11(5), Hinjawadi, Bangalore. Vs. Pune – 411 057. Pan: Aaack7308N Appellant Respondent

section 234D. 8.1 In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the orders of the lower income tax authorities be quashed. Or in the alternative (a) unabsorbed depreciation

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1 , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

depreciation at 60% in respect of software expenses held as capital expenditure for the earlier years. Grounds on disallowance of brand building expenses 25. The learned assessing officer has erred in treating brand building expenses of Rs. 81,79,53,112 as ‘capital expenditure’ and making net addition of Rs. 56,85,08,898. On facts and in the circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

depreciation thereon and recompute the disallowance ITA Nos.2810/Bang/2017 and 882/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 15 accordingly. The Tribunal has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Toyota Kirloskar Ltd., 349 ITR 65 wherein it was held that software expenses for licence up to 2 years is revenue in nature

M/S. SLING MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

section 234D on assessed income consequent to additions made during the assessment. (Tax effect being Rs 47,889) 6. Under The circumstances where under the grounds of Appeal with the substantiations are required to be filed within 60 days of the date of receipt of the Appellate order, the Appellant prays that it be permitted to add, amend, alter

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under