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 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

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

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\nat 25

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

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

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.\nOpening WDV\n(Rs.)\nAddition\nduring\nthe\nyear (Rs.)\nTotal assets\n(Rs.)\nDepreciation\nat 25% (Rs.)\nClosing WDV\n(Rs.)\n2015\n412

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

25 of 58 Spare parts supply rights & 1,387.00 Neither capitalised nor claimed as benefits revenue. Depreciation claim made before AO vide letter dated 15.10.2012 (refer Addl. ground 22) Supplier database 600.00 Claimed depreciation in ITR Software acquired 194.00 Claimed depreciation in ITR Sales promotion material 15.00 Neither capitalised nor claimed as revenue expenditure. Depreciation claim made before AO vide

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S SANYO BPL PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. Sanyo Bpl Pvt. Ltd. Jubilee Bldg., Ii Floor, No.45, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560025. … Appellant Pan: Aajcs 0332 B

section 43(1) are considered by their Lordships as under: Page 17 of 25 Page 18 of 25 Thus, the assessing authority has ample power to determine the ‘actual cost’ of the asset which is eligible for depreciation

M/S UKN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

25). 5.2 The ITAT 'C' Bench in the case M/s WS Atkins India Pvt. Ltd and in the case of Infotech Enterprises Ltd of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to disallow payments when TDS was not d o n e a n d subsequently become taxable

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

depreciation on goodwill under section 32(1) of the Act.” IT(TP)A No.226/Bang/2021 Page 20 of 25 27. The assessee

M/S. FIRST ADVANTAGE GLOBAL OPERATING CENTER PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14

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

depreciation claim at 25 per cent under section 32(1)(i) read 1 with Appendix-I, Part-A Division III (1) to the IT Rules

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

section (2), as increased by - (a)to (g) ****** ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 25 of 37 (h)if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (h) is debited to the profit and loss account, and as reduced by— (i)& (ii) ****** (iii)the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation

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

section (2), as increased by - (a)to (g) ****** ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 25 of 37 (h)if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (h) is debited to the profit and loss account, and as reduced by— (i)& (ii) ****** (iii)the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation

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

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

depreciation on lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

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

depreciation on lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

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

depreciation on lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

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

depreciation on lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area