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

50. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that it had incurred revenue expenditure of ₹1,25,59,57,776/- on in-house research and development activities during the year. The R&D facilities were duly approved by the DSIR. Based on such approval, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee contended

M/S. SWETHA HEALTH RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

50 of the Act, would be a depreciable asset and not the one on which no depreciation was ever claimed then such assets which are not depreciable, could not ever be assessed under Section

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

depreciation on intangible assets. 46. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2018-19 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 for the assessment year 2017- 18. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 shall also be applicable

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

50,735 along with other addition of Rs.2,97,47,130 and Rs.84,59,015. Other additions are deleted by the ld. CIT(A) or if confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), are not pressed before us. 26. The facts of disallowance of depreciation on luxury motor cars is identical to the facts stated for AY 2012-13. The argument

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

50,735 along with other addition of Rs.2,97,47,130 and Rs.84,59,015. Other additions are deleted by the ld. CIT(A) or if confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), are not pressed before us. 26. The facts of disallowance of depreciation on luxury motor cars is identical to the facts stated for AY 2012-13. The argument

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

50,735 along with other addition of Rs.2,97,47,130 and Rs.84,59,015. Other additions are deleted by the ld. CIT(A) or if confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), are not pressed before us. 26. The facts of disallowance of depreciation on luxury motor cars is identical to the facts stated for AY 2012-13. The argument

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

50,735 along with other addition of Rs.2,97,47,130 and Rs.84,59,015. Other additions are deleted by the ld. CIT(A) or if confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), are not pressed before us. 26. The facts of disallowance of depreciation on luxury motor cars is identical to the facts stated for AY 2012-13. The argument

M/S UKN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

depreciation cannot be disallowed on the ground that at the time of remittance, no tax was deducted at source. Provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not applicable for claim for deduction under section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the AO was not justified in disallowing 50

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 could be invoked only if the Assessing Officer was of the view that fair market value of assets had been inflated to claim excess depreciation; where fair market value of asset had been certified by registered valuer and the assessing officer had not appointed his own valuer for valuation of disputed assets

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

section 115JB as per which the amount of unabsorbed loss is to be discarded after the expiry of eight years from the year in which it was first computed. Even if loss is brought forward from 50 years back, that has also to be reckoned. To put it simply the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation

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

section 115JB as per which the amount of unabsorbed loss is to be discarded after the expiry of eight years from the year in which it was first computed. Even if loss is brought forward from 50 years back, that has also to be reckoned. To put it simply the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. OUTSOURCE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

Depreciation is provided on the basis of the written down value of such block and not the w.d.v. of such individual assets. Even the event of their transfer also does not lead to automatic charging of capital gains, unless the case falls under either of two clauses of section 50

OUTSOURCEPARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

Depreciation is provided on the basis of the written down value of such block and not the w.d.v. of such individual assets. Even the event of their transfer also does not lead to automatic charging of capital gains, unless the case falls under either of two clauses of section 50

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

50 relevant to Assessment Year 2009-10, and wherein the AO has allowed depreciation. It was submitted that, as the asset in question was already put to use, the conditions laid down in the proviso to section

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

50 of the Act is a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets and is applicable only to capital assets forming part of Block of Assets on which depreciation has been allowed under the Act. and also only for the purposes of sections

WINTAC LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation cannot be disallowed on the ground that at the time of remittance, no tax was deducted at source. Provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not applicable for claim for deduction under section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the AO was not justified in disallowing 50

KAWASAKI MICROELECTRONICS INC,BANGALORE vs. DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

depreciation cannot be disallowed on the ground that at the time of remittance, no tax was deducted at source. Provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not applicable for claim for deduction under section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the AO was not justified in disallowing 50

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

50,735 along with other addition of Rs.2,97,47,130 and Rs.84,59,015. Other additions are deleted by the ld. CIT(A) or if confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), are not pressed before us. 26. The facts of disallowance of depreciation on luxury motor cars is identical to the facts stated for AY 2012-13. The argument