M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

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

depreciation ii. Whether the amount paid by the Appellant for the purchase of existing businesses is fair and reasonable iii. Whether the Ld AO was right in invoking the provisions of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) 11. The Ld. A.R. relied on the submitted that in the present case, the businesses of M/s. Indus Seeds and M/s. Sasya Gentech

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

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

260 ITR 80.\n2.\nThe notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as\nmuch as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer\nproposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and\nconsequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is\ninvalid and the entire assessment proceedings

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

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

260 ITR 80.\n\niii.\nThe learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden\nof proving that there is a valid search under section 132 (1)\n(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the\nAct is untenable in law.\n\n2.\nThe notice issued under section

TECHNICOLOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs." 9. Having heard the learned. counsels for the parties, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present case also. The appeal filed by the Appellants- Revenue

TECHNICOLOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs." 9. Having heard the learned. counsels for the parties, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present case also. The appeal filed by the Appellants- Revenue

ETISALAT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

Depreciation and amortization 2,00,79,599 Other expenses 17,00,48,037 Less: Net loss on foreign currency transactions and (12,309,888) translation Less: Loss on sale of assets (1,724,020) Less: Prior period expenses (17,435) Less: Interest on TDS Delayed Payments (2,513) Total Expenses 2,567,801,646 Operating Profit 280,529,711 OP/OC

ANSR GLOBAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs." 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present IT(TP)A No.225/Bang/2021 Page 18 of 23 cases also

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

260 ITR 80.\n\n2.\nThe notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as\nmuch as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer\nproposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and\nconsequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is\ninvalid and the entire assessment proceedings

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S AURIGENE DISCOVERY TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation and the brought forward loss cannot be set off from business profits before computing provides for deduction of benefit on the profits and gains ? 2. The first substantial question of law is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT & Another Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn.) Similarly

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

section 40(a)(i) / 40(a)(ia). 7.2 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) – I, Bangalore has erred in concluding that provision for software expenses amounting to Rs. 7,36,83,260/- is also not eligible for depreciation

M/S SUNQUEST INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevanshri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.552/Bang/2015

260 Operating (profit)/Loss 2,10,95,137 OP Profit on cost % 12.60% * Excluding other income, for forex plus markup IT(TP)A No.552/B/15 5 ** Excluding interest & forex loss 7. In support of assessee’s claim that the price received in the international transaction is at arms length. The assessee filed Trasnfer Pricing Analysis selecting 21 companies as comparable with

LEMNISK PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 'VIZURY INTERACTIVE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED'),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation. e. The learned CIT(A) has erred in alleging that the Appellant had capitalized the software costs to avoid deduction of tax at source without any basis. f. The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that out of the total software purchase of Rs.10,59,229, invoice pertaining to Rs. 825,746 fell within the Notification

LEMNISK PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 'VIZURY INTERACTIVE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD'),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation. e. The learned CIT(A) has erred in alleging that the Appellant had capitalized the software costs to avoid deduction of tax at source without any basis. f. The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that out of the total software purchase of Rs.10,59,229, invoice pertaining to Rs. 825,746 fell within the Notification

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

depreciation on goodwill arising on account merger of Mphasis Finsolutions with itself. c. Granting credit for taxes deducted at source of Rs. 119,172,068/- as against the correct amount of Rs. 123,256,842/- resulting into lower credit of Rs 4,084,774/-. d. Not considering additional TDS claim arising on account of merger of Mphasis Finsolutions, Electronic Data

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

depreciation claimed by the appellant. 3.4. The learned AO has erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and has made an addition in the assessment order merely on the basis of intimation order issued by CPC when the said addition was not proposed in the draft order. 3.5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S PEOPLE'S EDUCATATION SOCIETY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Lalit Kumari.T.A No.1074/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Circle -1, Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Peoples Education Society, 50 Feet Road, Hanumanthanagar, Bsk 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560 050 .. Respondent Pan : Aaatp3955H Assessee By : Shri. Prashanth, C, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Iii Heard On : 31.05.2017 Pronounced On : 09.06.2017 O R D E R Per Lalit Kumar:

depreciation as application of income for the computation of application under section 11 in the case of a charitable institution has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Bombay in the case of CIT v Institute of Banking 264 ITR 110. f) A similar view in the matter was taken by the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore

DCIT, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

260 Bangalore ITAT, wherein similar issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal. In the aforesaid case, the assessee claimed depreciation and the AO denied depreciation on the ground that at the time of acquiring the relevant capital asset, cost of acquisition was considered as application of income in the year of its acquisition. The AO took the view that