M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

251 and settled principle that the duty of\nthe Appellate Authority is to remove the defects or\nirregularities that occur in the course of the\nassessment proceeding.\n\n13. As regards addition of Rs.1,55,45,376/- on\naccount purchase of tendu leaves;\n\n13. 1. The impugned addition of Rs. Rs.1,55,45,376/-\ntowards account purchase of tendu

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

251(1)(a) of the Act calling upon the assessee to show cause why the addition of Rs.1.25 Crores should not be made as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act, instead of deemed dividend under Section2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.4.3 After rejecting the technical objections raised by the assessee questioning his power to invoke the provisions

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

2 years then it is necessary to consider same as capital expenditure eligible for depreciation. 13.1 Regarding the alternative claim of the assessee i.e. allowances of depreciation at 60%, the learned CIT(A) noted identical issue has been decided by tribunal in the case of holding company of the assessee and other group companies where rate of depreciation on software

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

2 years then it is necessary to consider same as capital expenditure eligible for depreciation. 13.1 Regarding the alternative claim of the assessee i.e. allowances of depreciation at 60%, the learned CIT(A) noted identical issue has been decided by tribunal in the case of holding company of the assessee and other group companies where rate of depreciation on software

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

2 years then it is necessary to consider same as capital expenditure eligible for depreciation. 13.1 Regarding the alternative claim of the assessee i.e. allowances of depreciation at 60%, the learned CIT(A) noted identical issue has been decided by tribunal in the case of holding company of the assessee and other group companies where rate of depreciation on software

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

2\nyears then it is necessary to consider same as capital expenditure\neligible for depreciation.\n13.1 Regarding the alternative claim of the assessee i.e. allowances of\ndepreciation at 60%, the learned CIT(A) noted identical issue has been\ndecided by tribunal in the case of holding company of the assessee and\nother group companies where rate of depreciation on software

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." (emphasis supplied) We are concerned with the provision of section 147 as amended with effect from 1st April 1989. In paragraph 4 of the said decision

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." (emphasis supplied) We are concerned with the provision of section 147 as amended with effect from 1st April 1989. In paragraph 4 of the said decision

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

251 of the I.T. Act 1961 has been dealt with. The Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold as under : “In view of the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that incases falling under section 144B of the Act, the quasi-judicial function of the Income-tax Officer as an assessing authority comes

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 should 24 Chemicals Works Co Ltd 177 ITR 377, IBM also be allowed in respect of software India Ltd 357 ITR 88 etc. expenses of earlier years held as CIT v Toyota Kirloskar Motor P Ltd [2012] 349 capital in nature. ITR 65 (Kar) dt. 23.3.2011 CIT v IBM India Ltd [2013] 357 ITR 88 dt. 10.4.2013 Infosys

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on this is to be allowed. These grounds of assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.” 8.2 In view of the above, taking a consistent view, this issue is remitted to the file of AO/TPO for fresh consideration on similar directions in both these assessment years. 9. Next ground Nos.39 to 48 in assessment year

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on this is to be allowed. These grounds of assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.” 8.2 In view of the above, taking a consistent view, this issue is remitted to the file of AO/TPO for fresh consideration on similar directions in both these assessment years. 9. Next ground Nos.39 to 48 in assessment year

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

2\nyears then it is necessary to consider same as capital expenditure\neligible for depreciation.\n13.1 Regarding the alternative claim of the assessee i.e. allowances of\ndepreciation at 60%, the learned CIT(A) noted identical issue has been\ndecided by tribunal in the case of holding company of the assessee and\nother group companies where rate of depreciation on software

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

251 (Bangalore – Trib.) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that the matter need not be restored to the files of the AO without any allegations of the AO or DRP that assessee has not satisfied any conditions specified under section 80G of the Act. Lastly, it was contended that the donation receipts

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 The assessee, a company in the business of manufacture of enzymes and pharmaceutical ingredients, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.9.2008 declaring income of Rs.336,54,93,391 and Book Profits at Rs.37,84,02,814. The return was processed under Section

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 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 CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

section 2(29BA) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied on the ratios laid down in the following judgments, justifying the claim of additional depreciation: 1. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata v. Bengal Beverages (P) Ltd (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 103(Kolkata-Trib) 2. D.J. Stone Crusher Vs. CIT (2010) 229 CTR 195 (HP) 3. CIT, Shimla Vs. Smt.Supriya Gill