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

section 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

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

section 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

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

section 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 8 of 34 to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section

M/S I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

253 (Bangalore - Trib.) is also found to be well placed. In view of above, the disallowance or depreciation as made by the AO is upheld. M/s. I&B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 26 7. Further, it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has relied upon certain decisions to support its contention that differential

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

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed and appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5 of 24 IT(TP)A No.429 & 578/Bang/2015 b. Holding that the servers, switches, routers should form part of block of 'plant & machinery' and depreciation @ 15% be allowed on them. c. Granting depreciation on servers, switches, routers @ 15% and accordingly, disallowing the excess depreciation of 45% amounting to Rs. 63,3 8,865. d. Without prejudice, not re-computing opening

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

5 of 9 10. After the conclusion of the Assessment proceedings, in the case of CIT vs Smiffs Securities Ltd (348 ITR 302), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that goodwill is an asset within the meaning of section 32 of the Act and hence, depreciation on goodwill is an allowable expense under the said section. In view of this

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

5. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234D. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under section 234B and 234D is not applicable. Even otherwise, the interest u/s 234B and 234D is excessive. 6. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B without appreciating the provisions

M/S. ALLEGIS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016 – 17

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Bangalore ["the CIT(A)"] dated 27 May 2019, on the following grounds: Page 2 of 10 A. Y : 2016 – 17 1.The learned CIT(A) has erred, in fact and law, by not allowing the eligible deduction of donation amounting

INVTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), against the order dated 13 February 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144 C of the Act in pursuance of the directions dated 12 October

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

M/S. FIBERLINK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following grounds: Page 2 of 15 IT(TP)A No. 2703/Bang/2017 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and based on the directions of the DRP: A. General 1. The order of the learned AO and directions

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

253, the only two questions answered in the judgment were: (i) "Whether sub section (2) and sub section (3) of Section 14A inserted with effect from 01.04.2007 will apply to all pending assessments? (ii) Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?" The question whether the section will attract even when there is potential of exempt dividend income from share investment