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

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year (Rs.) 2015 - 412,05,36,13 412,05,36,13 103,01,34

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

34. Reliance is also placed on following decisions wherein it has been held that the proceedings initiated under section 147 are liable to be quashed on the ground that there was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer, even though no assessment u/s 143(3) or 144 had been made before and the return was merely processed

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

34. Reliance is also placed on following decisions wherein it has been held that the proceedings initiated under section 147 are liable to be quashed on the ground that there was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer, even though no assessment u/s 143(3) or 144 had been made before and the return was merely processed

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: Α.Υ. Opening WDV (Rs.) Addition during the year (Rs.) Total assets (Rs.) Depreciation at 25% (Rs.) Closing WDV (Rs.) 2015 412,05,36,13 412,05,36,13 103,01,34

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

34. The claim for depreciation was disallowed by the AO and such disallowance of claim for depreciation as per the aforesaid chart in this paragraph is subject matter of Gr.No.5 raised by the Assessee before the Tribunal. 35. As per the BTA dated 4.5.2007 between the Assessee and IRIL, the Assessee acquired, inter-alia, as part of slump purchase

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 158BC of the Act.. . ." 14. This case was challenged in the Supreme Court and SLP No. 13345 of 2018 was admitted. But subsequently, it was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the decision in Best Infrastructure(supra) has not been disturbed. 15. This case was subsequently referred to a larger Bench in the case of CIT v. M.S. Aggarwal

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 158BC of the Act.. . ." 14. This case was challenged in the Supreme Court and SLP No. 13345 of 2018 was admitted. But subsequently, it was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the decision in Best Infrastructure(supra) has not been disturbed. 15. This case was subsequently referred to a larger Bench in the case of CIT v. M.S. Aggarwal

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 158BC of the Act.. . ." 14. This case was challenged in the Supreme Court and SLP No. 13345 of 2018 was admitted. But subsequently, it was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the decision in Best Infrastructure(supra) has not been disturbed. 15. This case was subsequently referred to a larger Bench in the case of CIT v. M.S. Aggarwal

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 158BC of the Act.. . ." 14. This case was challenged in the Supreme Court and SLP No. 13345 of 2018 was admitted. But subsequently, it was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the decision in Best Infrastructure(supra) has not been disturbed. 15. This case was subsequently referred to a larger Bench in the case of CIT v. M.S. Aggarwal

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

34. Lastly, we are of the view that amendment of section 43A by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1- 4-2003 is amendatory and not clarificatory. The amendment is in complete substitution of the section as it existed prior thereto. Under the unamended section 43A adjustment to the actual cost took place on the happening of change

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

34. Lastly, we are of the view that amendment of section 43A by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1- 4-2003 is amendatory and not clarificatory. The amendment is in complete substitution of the section as it existed prior thereto. Under the unamended section 43A adjustment to the actual cost took place on the happening of change

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 on such asset at the specified rate.” 8.26 In our opinion, the Mining Lease being right to undertake mining activity and the acquisition of surface rights thereon falls with the purview of the term “business or commercial right” ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 31 of 55 8.27 The lease granted

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 on such asset at the specified rate.” 8.26 In our opinion, the Mining Lease being right to undertake mining activity and the acquisition of surface rights thereon falls with the purview of the term “business or commercial right” ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 31 of 55 8.27 The lease granted

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 on such asset at the specified rate.” 8.26 In our opinion, the Mining Lease being right to undertake mining activity and the acquisition of surface rights thereon falls with the purview of the term “business or commercial right” ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 31 of 55 8.27 The lease granted

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 on such asset at the specified rate.” 8.26 In our opinion, the Mining Lease being right to undertake mining activity and the acquisition of surface rights thereon falls with the purview of the term “business or commercial right” ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 31 of 55 8.27 The lease granted

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 on such asset at the specified rate.” 8.26 In our opinion, the Mining Lease being right to undertake mining activity and the acquisition of surface rights thereon falls with the purview of the term “business or commercial right” ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 31 of 55 8.27 The lease granted

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: Α.Υ. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation at 25% (Rs.) Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) year (Rs.) 2015 -16 412,05,36,13 2 412,05,36,13 2 103,01,34

WINTAC LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

34,52,190 as royalty to be disallowed by the AO. 8. The appellant be permitted to adduce further evidence at the time of hearing.” 2. The only issue raised in the appeal of the assessee is regarding disallowance of depreciation made by the AO by invoking of section