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 35E(3)(iii) – depreciable in metal in setting tank for nature water filtration TOTAL 1,44,84,394 12.5 The ld. A.R. stated

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 35E(3)(iii) – depreciable in metal in setting tank for nature water filtration TOTAL 1,44,84,394 12.5 The ld. A.R. stated

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 35E(3)(iii) – depreciable in metal in setting tank for nature water filtration TOTAL 1,44,84,394 12.5 The ld. A.R. stated

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

394/- is not allowable as a deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. d) The learned AO failed to appreciate the fact that the question of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise when the assessee has not claimed the said payment as an expenditure. 3.2 Non-grant of depreciation

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. George

394 AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 set off Net Taxable Income NIL 4. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer adjusted the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation against the profits of STPI undertaking before computing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act resulting in Page 3 of 5 setting off the entire current year profits of the company

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

section 71 of the Act), returned a total taxable Income of Rs. 2,59,15,640. 10. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the sale of the leasehold rights over the land that was sold gave rise to long term capital gain (LTCG). That the sale of building was taxable as short term capital gain (STCG

M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Cyber Park Develoment & Construction Ltd. Plot Nos.76 & 77, Electronic Phase I, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccc1113H Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent

394/-. The assessee’s contention that no borrowed funds were utilised was rejected by the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order, confirmed the disallowance of depreciation in the following words: “....It is the contention of the appellant that the rights in the undivided portion of the land in terms

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

394 (Pune –Trib), rejected CPM as the MAM. In its decision in that case, where the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various industrial products such as decanters, separators, etc. to its AE located abroad as well as in the domestic sector, in view of the fact that there were various differences in export segment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

394 ITR 300, Accordingly we allow these grounds raised by revenue. 7.Ground No.4-5 is in respect of direction to reduce telecommunication charges from both export turnover as well as total turnover by Ld.CIT (A) for purposes of computation of deduction under section 10A. At the outset Ld.CIT DR concedes that, issue stands settled in favour of assessee by decision

M/S APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 92CA made adjustments towards the determination of ALP towards the provision of Software Development (SWD) Services by the assessee to its AE for Rs.53,11,24,394/- and also TP adjustment with respect to interest on outstanding trade receivables for Rs.4,49,06,596/-. While passing the draft order the AO made the following disallowances in addition

M/S. CENTUM ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

depreciation, extra credit for TDS and wrong disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. ITA No.946 /Bang/2019 M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 8 At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that Ground Nos. 1-3 are in respect of validity of the reassessment order passed which goes to the root of the case. We therefore first deal

ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1824/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation on such assets as the actual cost under section 43(1) has to be taken at “NIL”, does not have any connection with the applicability of clause (iv) of section 28. Accordingly the above objection is rejected.” 18. The Ld A.R submitted that, in order to invoke the provision of section 28(iv) of the Act, a benefit

AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 92F(ii). The ld. AR submitted that RPT filter of 15% should be adopted as it would IT(TP)A Nos. 238/Bang/2021 & 262/Bang/2022 Page 18 of 133 result in adopting better uncontrolled comparable companies. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: • Yodlee Infotech Pvt Ltd ITA No 684 & 685/2017 (Kar HC) • Barracuda Networks India

AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 92F(ii). The ld. AR submitted that RPT filter of 15% should be adopted as it would IT(TP)A Nos. 238/Bang/2021 & 262/Bang/2022 Page 18 of 133 result in adopting better uncontrolled comparable companies. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: • Yodlee Infotech Pvt Ltd ITA No 684 & 685/2017 (Kar HC) • Barracuda Networks India

GOKALDAS IMAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No. / C.O. Appellant Respondent No. & Asst. Year 77/Bang/2015 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Gokaldas Images 2010-11 Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd., 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022 Pan Aaacg6637Q C.O. M/S. Gokaldas Images Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of No.82/Bang/2015 Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd (In It(Tp)A 3(1)(2), Bangalore. No.77/Bang/2015) Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022 439/Bang/2016 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 582/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Gokaldas Images 2011-12 Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd., 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022 1502/Bang/2014 M/S. Gokaldas Images Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of 2009-10 Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 11(3), 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd Bangalore. Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022 1557/Bang/2014 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Gokaldas Images 2009-10 Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd., 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022

394 ITR 540 (Kar) for advances provided to the sister concerns on commercial expediency. And in assessee own case, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 dealt on this issue. Further the Ld. AR submitted that the Ground Nos.4, 7 IT(TP)A Nos.1502&1557/Bang/2014; 439 & 582/Bang/2016; 77/Bang/2015 & CO No.82/Bang/2015

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No. / C.O. Appellant Respondent No. & Asst. Year 77/Bang/2015 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Gokaldas Images 2010-11 Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd., 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022 Pan Aaacg6637Q C.O. M/S. Gokaldas Images Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of No.82/Bang/2015 Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd (In It(Tp)A 3(1)(2), Bangalore. No.77/Bang/2015) Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022 439/Bang/2016 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 582/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Gokaldas Images 2011-12 Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd., 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022 1502/Bang/2014 M/S. Gokaldas Images Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of 2009-10 Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 11(3), 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd Bangalore. Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022 1557/Bang/2014 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Gokaldas Images 2009-10 Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd., 7 & 12, Indl. Suburb, 2Nd Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022

394 ITR 540 (Kar) for advances provided to the sister concerns on commercial expediency. And in assessee own case, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 dealt on this issue. Further the Ld. AR submitted that the Ground Nos.4, 7 IT(TP)A Nos.1502&1557/Bang/2014; 439 & 582/Bang/2016; 77/Bang/2015 & CO No.82/Bang/2015