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

B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate at 25%. The AO also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that software which is not an integral part of related hardware is to be treated as intangible assets. The AO also referred the decision of ITAT in the case ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page

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

B of the appendix-1, the same is eligible to depreciate at 25%. The AO also referred to Accounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that software which is not an integral part of related hardware is to be treated as intangible assets. The AO also referred the decision of ITAT in the case ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page

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

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation loss. 9. The assessment order of the Learned Assessing Officer is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under section 92CA of the Act did not exist or having not been compiled with and consequently the order of the Learned Assessing Officer is bad in law want of requisite jurisdiction. The Learned Assessing Officer erred

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation loss. 9. The assessment order of the Learned Assessing Officer is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under section 92CA of the Act did not exist or having not been compiled with and consequently the order of the Learned Assessing Officer is bad in law want of requisite jurisdiction. The Learned Assessing Officer erred

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

B of the appendix-1, the\nsame is eligible to depreciate at 25%. The AO also referred to\nAccounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that software\nwhich is not an integral part of related hardware is to be treated as\nintangible assets. The AO also referred the decision of ITAT in the case\nof M/s Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. Accordingly

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)(c) which are not applicable to the assessee’s case and submitted that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the above referred cases have

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

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

b) The provision of section 80A(1) is incorporated in section 10AA(1) itself. Section 80A(1) provides that - "In computing the total income of the assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income .........Section 10AA (1) also Page 6 of 39 ITA Nos.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023 Tata Elxsi Ltd., Bangalore provides that - "Subject to provisions of this section

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

B Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(3), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri D.Sudhakar Rao, CIT(DR). Date of hearing : 11/08/2016 Date of pronouncement : 04/11/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

section 133 (6). Accordingly, we direct Ld.TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list. 8.2.13. Persistent systems Ltd. Ld. Counsel submitted that this comparable has been included by Ld.TPO, however in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008- 09 this Tribunal in ITA No.5401/Del/2012 directed exclusion of the same on the ground that it is functionally different with

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

B of the appendix-1, the\nsame is eligible to depreciate at 25%. The AO also referred to\nAccounting Standard 26-Intangible Assets which describes that software\nwhich is not an integral part of related hardware is to be treated as\nintangible assets. The AO also referred the decision of ITAT in the case\nof M/s Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. Accordingly

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

b) of the Act. It was submitted that the provisions of section 10AA(2) of the Act are applicable only for last 5 years of deduction out of total 15 years. As the year under consideration was the 2nd year of claim, this requirement is thereby not relevant in the present case. Therefore, this condition for denial of deduction under

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

6. The learned AO completed the assessment proceedings vide orders dated 30.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18 and under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19. The only disputed addition is the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 7. The appellant being aggrieved

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

6. The learned AO completed the assessment proceedings vide orders dated 30.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18 and under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19. The only disputed addition is the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 7. The appellant being aggrieved

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

6. The learned AO completed the assessment proceedings vide orders dated 30.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18 and under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19. The only disputed addition is the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 7. The appellant being aggrieved