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

depreciation claim by applying ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 26 of 53 the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. According

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

26, without properly examining the\nnature, utility, and duration of the software licences. Such an approach,\nin our view, is not sustainable in law. The issue whether software\nexpenditure is capital or revenue has to be decided based on the\nfunctional test and the real nature of the advantage obtained, and not\nmerely on the basis of depreciation rates prescribed

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

26 (Gujarat) wherein the Court held that where the assessee makes a claim for depreciation on enhanced cost, which is actual cost in its hands, it was necessary for the authority who wanted to determine the ‘actual cost’ as required by Explanation 3 to section

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

26, without properly examining the\nnature, utility, and duration of the software licences. Such an approach,\nin our view, is not sustainable in law. The issue whether software\nexpenditure is capital or revenue has to be decided based on the\nfunctional test and the real nature of the advantage obtained, and not\nmerely on the basis of depreciation rates prescribed

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

26,381 for acquiring 'computers and softwares', which were capitalized and depreciation @ 60% was claimed thereon. The Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow the depreciation claimed by the assessee by invoking the provisions of section

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. 7.5 He submitted that orders of lower authorities to be confirmed. Findings: 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to ground No.1 it is observed that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09- 2006 (“Mining Agreement

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. 7.5 He submitted that orders of lower authorities to be confirmed. Findings: 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to ground No.1 it is observed that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09- 2006 (“Mining Agreement

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. 7.5 He submitted that orders of lower authorities to be confirmed. Findings: 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to ground No.1 it is observed that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09- 2006 (“Mining Agreement

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. 7.5 He submitted that orders of lower authorities to be confirmed. Findings: 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to ground No.1 it is observed that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09- 2006 (“Mining Agreement

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. 7.5 He submitted that orders of lower authorities to be confirmed. Findings: 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to ground No.1 it is observed that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09- 2006 (“Mining Agreement

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

depreciation, it is so provided in section 115JA and the similar wording has been used in clause (iii) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB also, which is under consideration. Hence the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 26

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

depreciation, it is so provided in section 115JA and the similar wording has been used in clause (iii) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB also, which is under consideration. Hence the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 26

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

26. Ground No.5 by the assessee is as follows:- “5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in confirming the action of the Learned AO to partially deny claim of depreciation to the extent of INR 23,23,54,949 on goodwill/intangible assets acquired as a part of acquisition

KAWASAKI MICROELECTRONICS INC,BANGALORE vs. DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

26-06-2015 O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO,JM. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dt.16.10.2010 passed under Section 143(3) rws 144C(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dt.22.9.2010 passed under Section 144C

BOSCH GLOBAL SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any previous year.” 15.3 The relevant clause in present case is clause (iii) according to which any office appliance including the computer or computer software shall not be included in the “New asset” for purpose of this section. On careful perusal

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 5 Addition under section 14A of the Act 5.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making an addition under section 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") 5.2 The Learned CIT(A) has erred

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation on goodwill is allowable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “ The Assessing Officer held that goodwill was not an asset falling under Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act', for short]. We quote hereinbelow Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act: "Explanation 3.- For the purposes of this

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32 of the Act. The issue whether Goodwill arising on transfer is eligible for depreciation or not, is no longer Res-Integra, and has been settled by the Hon'ble SC in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), wherein held that “in the present case, it is the valuation that is challenged and not the eligibility