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

ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 35(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961" ], "issues": "1. Whether software license fees are allowable as revenue expenditure. 2. Whether depreciation

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

depreciation. For R&D expenditure, the Tribunal held that Form 3CL is procedural and cannot override the Act, allowing weighted deduction on the entire eligible expenditure.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 32(1)(ii

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 claimed on intangible assets. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. 37. Coming to issue raised through additional ground of appeal regarding allowances of foreign tax as business expenses under section 37 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 32 of 53 38. The relevant facts are that during the year under consideration, the assessee

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, as laid down in several decisions which we will refer to while dealing with claim of depreciation on goodwill. We hold and direct accordingly and allow Gr.No.16 (Additional) and dismiss Gr.No.8 raised by the Assessee. 59. Additional Gr.No.15 & 21 are concerned, the same are in relation to Goodwill claimed

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35 of 64 Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings under section 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law (see Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta)." 50. In Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35 of 64 Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings under section 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law (see Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta)." 50. In Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

35(1)(iv) of the Act, as the case may be. 9.3. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is for the purposes of its business and hence allowable under section 37(1) of the Act (and capital expenditure under section

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

35(1)(iv) of the Act, as the case may be. 9.3. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is for the purposes of its business and hence allowable under section 37(1) of the Act (and capital expenditure under section

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

35(1)(iv) of the Act, as the case may be. 9.3. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is for the purposes of its business and hence allowable under section 37(1) of the Act (and capital expenditure under section

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

35(1)(iv) of the Act, as the case may be. 9.3. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is for the purposes of its business and hence allowable under section 37(1) of the Act (and capital expenditure under section

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

35(1)(iv) of the Act, as the case may be. 9.3. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is for the purposes of its business and hence allowable under section 37(1) of the Act (and capital expenditure under section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

35(1)(iv) of the Act, as the case may be. 9.3. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is for the purposes of its business and hence allowable under section 37(1) of the Act (and capital expenditure under section

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

35(1)(iv) of the Act, as the case may be. 9.3. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is for the purposes of its business and hence allowable under section 37(1) of the Act (and capital expenditure under section

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange by its members are for 'technical services' rendered is not an appropriate view. Such charges, really, are in the nature of payments made for facilities provided

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange by its members are for 'technical services' rendered is not an appropriate view. Such charges, really, are in the nature of payments made for facilities provided

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 lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

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 lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

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 lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area