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

46A, but not for setting aside the issue for fresh decision when all relevant material is already available on record. It is also pertinent note that vide Finance Act 2024 a proviso inserted below to section 251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

46A, but not for setting aside the issue for fresh decision when all relevant material is already available on record. It is also pertinent note that vide Finance Act 2024 a proviso inserted below to section 251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

46A, but not for setting aside the issue for fresh decision when all relevant material is already available on record. It is also pertinent note that vide Finance Act 2024 a proviso inserted below to section 251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back

VIJAYKIRAN EDUCATIONALTRUST,BANGALORE KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 11(6) which is applicable from 1.4.2015 clearly state that where any sum is claimed as application of income, the same could not be considered for depreciation. After giving the assessee a notice/SCN which not responded to, the AO disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,67,36,705/- was from the application of income claimed by the assessee

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

depreciation @ 5% and arrived at a net disallowance of Rs.12,46,021. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the disallowance after verification of two sample invoices. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 29. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the amount incurred towards planning, designing and architecture fees satisfied all the conditions specified in section

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

depreciation @ 5% and arrived at a net disallowance of Rs.12,46,021. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the disallowance after verification of two sample invoices. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 29. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the amount incurred towards planning, designing and architecture fees satisfied all the conditions specified in section

DAVANAGERE HARIHAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DAVANGERE vs. ITO, DAVANGERE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Am (Smc)

depreciation as additional evidence and wrongly Invoking Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. He ought to have disposed off the ground as a normal ground. 6.0 Rate of Tax: 6.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in charging tax at maximum marginal rate. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS 7.That the learned assessing officer erred

M/S. BIOCON LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

46A of the Income-tax, Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") substantiating non realisation of sales proceeds on transfer of "development and commercialization rights" of Oral Insulin. 4.10 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the termination agreement for revocation of license for Oral Insulin and the board minutes to this effect

ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation claimed. The Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the purchase of software amounted to acquisition of intangible asset and therefore, the payment was royalty and disallowable. On appeal: ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page 12 of 16 Held, (i) that mere purchase of software, a copyrighted article, for utilisation of computers cannot be considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation claimed. The Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the purchase of software amounted to acquisition of intangible asset and therefore, the payment was royalty and disallowable. On appeal: ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page 12 of 16 Held, (i) that mere purchase of software, a copyrighted article, for utilisation of computers cannot be considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. JSW STEEL PROCESSING CENTRES LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed while the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

46A of the IT Rules and accordingly the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT (A) and we cancel the order of the CIT (A) with respect to grant of relief to the extent of Rs.8,27,739/- as mentioned in para 6.3 of the CIT (A)’s order. The CIT (A) is directed to decide this

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)

46A of the Income-tax Rules,1962 ["the Rules"]. Further, the Appellant has also furnished a copy of additional evidence before the learned AO at the time of issuance of remand report. 1.3. The learned CIT(A) and learned AO has erred in not considering the submissions/ documentary evidences furnished before them from time to time. 1.4. The learned

M/S LEPAKSHI KNOWLEDGE HUB PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Leepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Commissioner Of Ita No. Floor, Ibis Hotel, Income-Tax(Osd), 2013-14 1229/Bang/2018 Hosur Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 Bangalore. 068. Pan: Aabcl4609G M/S. Lepakshi The Deputy Knowledge Hub Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 2013-14 No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Circle – 4(1)(1)

46A of the IT Rule. 3. On facts of the case, Whether decision of the Ld CIT(A) is right in allowing depreciation on the building by ignoring the Inspectors report which clearly establishes that the building was not put to use during the relevant period. 4. On facts of the case, Whether the decision

M/S LEPAKSHI KNOWLEDGE HUB PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Leepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Commissioner Of Ita No. Floor, Ibis Hotel, Income-Tax(Osd), 2013-14 1229/Bang/2018 Hosur Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 Bangalore. 068. Pan: Aabcl4609G M/S. Lepakshi The Deputy Knowledge Hub Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 2013-14 No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Circle – 4(1)(1)

46A of the IT Rule. 3. On facts of the case, Whether decision of the Ld CIT(A) is right in allowing depreciation on the building by ignoring the Inspectors report which clearly establishes that the building was not put to use during the relevant period. 4. On facts of the case, Whether the decision

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LEEPAKSHI KNOWLEDGE HUB PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Leepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Commissioner Of Ita No. Floor, Ibis Hotel, Income-Tax(Osd), 2013-14 1229/Bang/2018 Hosur Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 Bangalore. 068. Pan: Aabcl4609G M/S. Lepakshi The Deputy Knowledge Hub Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 2013-14 No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Circle – 4(1)(1)

46A of the IT Rule. 3. On facts of the case, Whether decision of the Ld CIT(A) is right in allowing depreciation on the building by ignoring the Inspectors report which clearly establishes that the building was not put to use during the relevant period. 4. On facts of the case, Whether the decision

UTN CABLE COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation of the earlier years against the net taxable income while computing the tax liability. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s has erred in law in upholding levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, amounting to Rs. 19,08,418/-. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s has erred in law in upholding levy

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. NAGARJUNA EDUCATION SCOEITY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962; 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend all or any of the grounds of Appeal before or at the time of the hearing of the appeal; 6. The order of the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC may be set-aside and the order of the Assessing Officer may be confirmed.” 3. The only effective

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. TALLY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

46A(3) of the IT Rules to examine the issue? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) had not erred in not considering the CBDT circular No.5/2014, which made it clear that earning of exempt income was not mandatory for disallowance u/s 14a of the IT Act?” 2. The assessee is engaged