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

6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial and unjustified. According

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

6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial and unjustified. According

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

depreciation claimed on intangible assets. The grounds raised by the\nassessee on this issue are allowed.\n37. Coming to issue raised through additional ground of appeal\nregarding allowances of foreign tax as business expenses under section\n37 of the Act.\n38. The relevant facts are that during the year under consideration,\nthe assessee earned income from foreign parties. On such

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

43 of 58 claimed depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act with respect to the aforesaid various intangible assets aggregating to Rs.16.58 crores acquired through slump sale and categorized under the head “goodwill”. The assessing officer, CIT(A) and Tribunal disallowed the aforesaid claim of depreciation on intangible assets/goodwill. On further appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal

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(1) and Explanation 2 to section 43(6

M/S. ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

depreciation on Goodwill is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Explanation 7 to section 43(1), read with Explanation 2 to section 43(6

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

6 of 25 Page 7 of 25 Page 8 of 25 4. By holding so, the AO has disallowed depreciation on distribution network of Rs.44,29,80,000/- and disallowed the claim for depreciation of Rs.5,53,72,500/-. In respect of depreciation, the AO also disallowed depreciation on the assets acquired from BPL Ltd., valued by the assessee-company

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 the value of intangible at Rs.19,60,780/-, as already recorded in the books of Indus Seeds as on 31.10.2014 the date immediately before the said concern was taken over by the assessee company. 3. During appellate proceedings

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

43,03,000/-, the CIT(A), after referring to terms of concession agreement entered by the assessee-company with Government of India held that concession fee payable by the assessee-company in terms of agreement entered by it with Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, does not fall within the purview of section

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

43,03,000/-, the CIT(A), after referring to terms of concession agreement entered by the assessee-company with Government of India held that concession fee payable by the assessee-company in terms of agreement entered by it with Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, does not fall within the purview of section

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

depreciation claimed on intangible assets. The grounds raised by the\nassessee on this issue are allowed.\n37.\nComing to issue raised through additional ground of appeal\nregarding allowances of foreign tax as business expenses under section\n37 of the Act.\n38.\nThe relevant facts are that during the year under consideration,\nthe assessee earned income from foreign parties. On such

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

6. In fact coordinate bench under similar circumstances had examined the effect of omission of sub-section (9) to Section 10B of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2004 by Finance Act, 2003 and held that there was no saving clause or provision introduced by way of amendment by omitting sub- section (9) of Section 10B. In the matter of GENERAL FINANCE

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

depreciation against the taxable income of the subject assessment year in case the additions/ disallowances made in earlier years’ assessment orders are deleted by the appellate authorities. 12 Directions issued by the Honorable DRP The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts in not taking congnizance of the objections filed by the Appellant in relation to the draft

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P) A. No.1670/Bang/2012 S.P. No.120/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kalyani Platina, 3Rd Floor, Block 1, No.6 & 24, Epip Zone Phase 1, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 066 …. Appellant. Pan Aabcs 6967N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri D. Sudhakara Reddy, Cit-Iii (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 5.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 6.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2008-09 By The Dcit, Circle 11(4), Bangalore Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.29.10.2012, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Rws 144C(8) Of The Act Vide Order Dt.17.9.2012. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

43,04,052. 2.2 In view of the above international transactions entered into by the assessee, the Assessing Officer (‘A.O’) made a reference under Section 92CA of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) for determining the Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’) of these international transactions after obtaining the necessary approval from the CIT –I, Bangalore. The TPO vide

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

43,275) Income / (Loss) returned 6,13,71,327 Additional depreciation 4,32,76,661 6,09,96,372 93,97,114 11,15,78,665 1,17,96,261 disallowed , M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 21 of 29 Income / (loss) after (6,85,40,946) 7,53,097 disallowance

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

6,112,597,000 10,815,479,000 Total Investments 590,699,000 1,040,709,000 1,940,957,000 Investments made 50,000 450,000,000 900,258,000 during the year Investments made -- 450,000,000 -- during the year for acquiring controlling interest / strategic purpose Investments in Mutual -- -- 900,258,000 Funds during the year Investments from

M/S TRILOGY E- BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P.) A. No.33/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd., No.1/2, Lalitha Nilaya, 4Th Cross, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bhopsandra, Bangalore-560 094. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore-560 001. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P.) A. No.115/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C.A. Respondent By : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.5.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 6.11.2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Bangalore For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.33 & 115/Bang/2013 2. The Assessee-Company Was Incorporated In June 2000 & Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Versata International Inc., (Previously Known As Trilogy Inc.). During The Financial Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Has Provided Software Development Services As Well As Call Centre Services To Its Associated Enterprises (In Short ‘Aes’). The Assessee Is Compensated On Cost +10% Basis By Its Aes For The Services Provided By The Assessee. The Financial Results Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Recorded By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short ‘Tpo’) In Paragraph 2.1 As Under :

section 133(6) of the Act, the company has categorized itself as a pure software developer and therefore included this company as a comparable as the assessee was also a provider of software development services. Before us, in addition to the plea that the company was functionally different, the assessee submitted that this company was excluded from the list

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

6 of 11 i. The said goodwill is in the nature of any other commercial or business right under the category of an intangible asset that is eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Act. The issue whether Goodwill arising on transfer is eligible for depreciation or not, is no longer Res-Integra, and has been settled