M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Depreciation Closing WDV 180 180 Considera- WDV days days tion Residential 5,62,91,929 - - - 28,14,596 5,34,77,332 Commercial 1,40,62,786 - - - 1,33,34,195 12,00,07,752 Total 7,03,54, - - - 1,61,48,791 17,34,85,084 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Depreciation Closing WDV 180 180 Considera- WDV days days tion Residential 5,62,91,929 - - - 28,14,596 5,34,77,332 Commercial 1,40,62,786 - - - 1,33,34,195 12,00,07,752 Total 7,03,54, - - - 1,61,48,791 17,34,85,084 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed

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

section 43(1) of the Act held that depreciation would be admissible only with reference to the WDV of the assets (as appearing in the books of IRIL on basis of Form 3CEA report) forming part of the business purchased by the appellant and not with reference to the values on the basis of valuer’s report. Accordingly, the assessing

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5

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

section 10AA being clarificatory in nature, will apply retrospectively and, hence, deduction u/s 10AA for AY 2013-14 will be computed only w.r.t the amount of income as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. d. The depreciation is compulsory as per Explanation 5

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

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 cannot be granted. In forming this opinion, assistance has been taken from the opening words of sub-section (1) of section 115JB as well as sub-section (5

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 cannot be granted. In forming this opinion, assistance has been taken from the opening words of sub-section (1) of section 115JB as well as sub-section (5

SRI. PAVAN KANDKUR,HUBBALLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

5) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer has not passed the order under sub-section (13) of that section on or before the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant as per the assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer under subsection (13) thereof; (F) in a case where

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

depreciation and investment allowance) of the undertaking stating that "profits and gains" is not the same as "income", whereas revenue claimed that deduction is allowable only on net profits as computed under sections 28 to 43D of the Act. The full bench of the Apex court reproduced the reference order dated 5

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

depreciation\nand investment allowance) of the undertaking stating that \"profits and gains\" is not\nthe same as \"income\", whereas revenue claimed that deduction is allowable only on\nnet profits as computed under Section 28 to 43D of the Act.\nThe full bench of the Apex court reproduced the reference order dated 5

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO\ndisallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA-\n2 and added the amount of ₹5

OPTO CIRCUITS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year.” 10. Reading the above sub-sections, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has misread the provisions of sub-sections (5

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NSL SUGARS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

5 of 18 assessee had no other source of income. Conversally the unabsorbed losses, unabsorbed depreciation etc relating to the eligible business are to be taken into account in determining the quantum of deduction admissible under section

M/S NSL SUGARS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

5 of 18 assessee had no other source of income. Conversally the unabsorbed losses, unabsorbed depreciation etc relating to the eligible business are to be taken into account in determining the quantum of deduction admissible under section

INDAUTO FILTERS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

section 32 of the Act is mandatory allowable if the said asset is used for the purpose of business of the assessee. In other words, whether the assessee makes a claim of depreciation or not in his return of income, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to grant depreciation allowance by virtue of Explanation 5