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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act) for A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2021-22, which were heard together. 2. First, we take up ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017- 18 as the lead case. The assessee, in the memo of appeal, has raised four grounds bearing numbers

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

4 of the assessee's appeal pertains to levy of\ninterest under section 234A to 234D of the Act which is consequential in\nnature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, the same\nare dismissed as infructuous.\n80. Coming to the issue raised through additional ground of appeal\nregarding allowances of foreign tax as business expenditure

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"): M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 29 1.Disallowance of relief claimed under section 10B of the Act 1.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law arid in fact in disallowing the relief claimed under section 10B of the Act; 1.2 The Learned

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

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

250 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act) for A.Ys. 2017-18 to\n2021-22, which were heard together.\n2.\nFirst, we take up ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-\n18 as the lead case. The assessee, in the memo of appeal, has raised\nfour grounds bearing numbers