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

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

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. 38

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 SOT 496 and held that provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) referred to outgoing expenditure and not capital expenditure and hence depreciation

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 SOT 496 and held that provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) referred to outgoing expenditure and not capital expenditure and hence depreciation

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 SOT 496 and held that provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) referred to outgoing expenditure and not capital expenditure and hence depreciation

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 SOT 496 and held that provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) referred to outgoing expenditure and not capital expenditure and hence depreciation

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 SOT 496 and held that provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) referred to outgoing expenditure and not capital expenditure and hence depreciation

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

38) thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply; or g) the amount of depreciation h) the amount of deferred

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

38) thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply; or g) the amount of depreciation h) the amount of deferred

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. The claim for deduction as revenue expenditure is made in Gr.No.7 and for depreciation is made in (Additional) Gr.No.23 which is a general ground for allowance of depreciation on the entire consideration paid for business transfer of RDB. 36. The following were claimed as revenue expenditure in the revised return

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

38 SOT 496. The learned Authorised Representative has contended that the issue of disallowance of depreciation by applying the provisions of section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

38) thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply; or (g) the amount of depreciation, (h) the amount of deferred

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

depreciation is subjected to the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) or not ?. We quote the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) as under: Page 5 of 9 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38

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

38 SOT 496. The learned Authorised Representative has contended that the issue of disallowance of depreciation by applying the provisions of section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S W.S. ATKINS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and C

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

depreciation is subjected to the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) or not ?. We quote the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) as under: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on the said asset should also be allowed. This is explicitly made clear by Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Act.” 5. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the reasoning given by the assessee and therefore disallowed the business losses to the tune of Rs. 5,20,16,620/- and treated the entire rental receipt

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BANGALORE vs. M/S KAWASKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

depreciation claim. 05. Now before us, Ld. DR strongly assailing the order of CIT (A) submitted that Section 40(a)(i) of the Act started with a non- obstante clause and covered sections 30 to 38

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises