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 in violation of section 43 of the Act. In fact, the learned CIT(A) himself has recorded that section

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

depreciation\nand investment allowance. Therefore, the term profits and gains are not\nsynonymous with the term 'income'.....\nReading of Section 80HH along with Section 80A would clearly signify that such a\ndeduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as\nspecified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act.\n106. Thus, it has been

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

43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 40(a)(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

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

depreciation and it reads thus:- “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires

M/S SANYO BPL PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. Sanyo Bpl Pvt. Ltd. Jubilee Bldg., Ii Floor, No.45, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560025. … Appellant Pan: Aajcs 0332 B

depreciation. Invoking provisions of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act, the AO had allowed depreciation on the value

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

section 43(6)(c)(ii) while the accountant has determined the value u/s 43(6)(c)(i)(C). In view of the above arguments it is doubtful that the company has transferred the brand on a slump sale basis as what was transferred was only a brand and not an undertaking or division Hence, the transfer on account of sale

M/S I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation by the assessee company. The AO invoked the provisions of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Act and restricted

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

depreciation [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [section 35(1)(iv )] and also

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

depreciation [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [section 35(1)(iv )] and also

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

depreciation on goodwill and held it to be as an allowable claim. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO has invoked Explanation 7 to section 43

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

section\n43(1) of the Act or undertaken any exercise to determine a different\n\"actual cost\" of the assets. There is also no finding that the assessee\ninflated the cost of acquisition or claimed depreciation in violation of\nsection 43

UNITED BREWERIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

depreciation is not allowable as per the 5th proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. The ld. DR has also referred to the Expln. 3 to Section 43

M/S. I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on the same. The A.O. invoked the provisions of explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act and observed

M/S. I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on the same. The A.O. invoked the provisions of explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act and observed

M/S. I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on the same. The A.O. invoked the provisions of explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act and observed

DCIT vs. ING VYSYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

43(1) dealt with definition of the expression "cost of acquisition of assets in respect of which depreciation is to be allowed." His first submission was that the asset in question is land which is not a depreciable asset and therefore Explanation 8 to section

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

43(1) dealt with definition of the expression "cost of acquisition of assets in respect of which depreciation is to be allowed." His first submission was that the asset in question is land which is not a depreciable asset and therefore Explanation 8 to section

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

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

43-B of the IT Act means the contribution of the employer and the employee. That being so, if the contribution is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section(1) of Section 139 of the IT Act is made, the employer is entitled for deduction”. 14.3 The law stood during