MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

274 (Bangalore - Trib.)[15- 06-2022] reads as under: “Amendment by Finance Act 2021 clarifies the position on Goodwill depreciation 13.13 The Finance Act, 2021, inserted a series of amendments in relation to the allowance of depreciation on Goodwill. Post such 9 Assessment Year 2020-2021 amendments, no depreciation is allowable to an Assessee on goodwill. However, it has been

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 673/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007 – 08

274 of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. Assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2007 declaring total income of Rs.88,89,272/-. Return was processed under section 143 (1) of the Act and case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice under section 143 (2) was issued to assessee along with notice under section

M/S. SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

depreciation Under Section 32 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments. • CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [ 1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) • Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) • Smt. Satish Bala Malhotra v. CIT [2017] 391 ITR 256 (Punjab 8s Haryana) • CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) • CIT v. Darashaw

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued on April 25, 2023, requiring the assessee . Page 6 of 16 to appear personally the very next day. Subsequently, the AO passed the penalty order on April 28, 2023. Thus, the reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mandated under the law was not provided, rendering the penalty order

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

depreciation and investment allowance, etc as the same are not actual expense and hence need to be excluded. The appellant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has provided the interpretation of the wording "profits and gains" for the purpose of section 80HH. As the wording of section 1OAA is para materia to the wording in section 80HH, the ratio

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act has been\ncomputed and, hence, Explanation 5 to section 32 is complied with. However,\nrelying on the aforesaid Apex Court decision, while quantifying the amount of the\ndeduction u/s. 10AA in respect both Refinery SEZ and PP SEZ, the term \"profits\nand gains' would mean gross revenue receipts less actual expenses i.e excluding\ndepreciation

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT vs. M/S RYTARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA , BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the CO is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation claim was disallowed to the extent of excess claim made in the return of income. Besides the above there were certain disallowances of expenses under Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. In respect of the addition made as aforesaid the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty on the Assessee which

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

274 read with section 270A of the Act. 6. Assessee has filed two sets of Paper Books, in one set enclosing the case laws relied on and in the other set enclosing the tax audit report in Form 3CA-3CD, the notices issued by the AO and the DRP, party wise details of the donations made to the institutions having

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOUS INFO SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T.A No.63/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Nous Info Systems P. Ltd, No.1, 1St Main, 1St Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 004 .. Respondent Pan : Aaacn4584B Assessee By : Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vijaykumar N, Addl. Cit Heard On : 14.09.2016 Pronounced On : 11 .11.2016 O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman:

274/- as per revised return of income. • Carry forward of business losses at Rs.12,378,310/- has not been considered. 2.3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru . The CIT(A) , inter alia, relying the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

274 read with 270A of the Act with regard to disallowances made towards the claim of depreciation on the ground that the revenue expenditure claimed as application of income includes the depreciation claim and the depreciation claim is in contravention of section

M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 03/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abb Global Industries & Services Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abb The Deputy Global Industries & Commissioner Of Services Ltd.) Income Tax, 21St Floor, Wtc, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore. Vs. Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055. Pan: Aadca3217B Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Here Under Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. Assessment Bad In Law At The Outset, Abb Global Industries & Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated 30Th October 2019

depreciation on the software expenses were duly given in the earlier assessment years 3.3 Initiation of Penalty Proceedings The Learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274

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

depreciation adjustment; 11. Non- grant of working capital adjustment Erred in not granting suitable adjustments to account for differences in the working capital employed by the comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its transfer pricing study as well as accepted by the learned TPO; 12. TP adjustment should be restricted to international transactions with associated enterprises Page

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation. Erroneous non-set-off of MAT credit entitlement 10. The Ld. NFAC has erred in law in not setting-off MAT credit entitlement pertaining to earlier AYs. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. Erroneous non-grant of Foreign Tax Credit 11. The Ld. NFAC has erred

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

depreciation and investment allowance, etc as the same are not actual expense and hence need to be excluded. The appellant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has provided the interpretation of the wording "profits and gains" for the purpose of section 80HH. As the wording of section 1OAA is para materia to the wording in section 80HH, the ratio

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]

depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) claimed by the assessee ought to have been upheld. (4) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting aforesaid addition by observing that the AO has accepted the Assessee's claim for the earlier years on this issue whereas the said assessments were re-opened