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 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year

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 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year

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

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to\nA.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner:\nΑ.Υ. Opening WDV Addition\nTotal assets Depreciation\nat 25% (Rs.)\nClosing WDV\n(Rs.)\nduring\nthe (Rs.)\nyear (Rs.)\n2015\n-16\n412,05,36,13\n2\n412,05,36,13\n2\n103

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

depreciation on intangible assets.\n20.\nThe relevant facts are that the assessee company entered 2\ndifferent business transferred agreement (BTA) with its holding company\nInfosys Ltd. The first BTA was entered as on 1st July 2014 i.e. during the\nF.Y. 2014-15 for transfer of Edge suit of product division for a\nconsideration of Rs. 421 crores. The second

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on lease hold land claimed by assessee u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 6.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mining Agreement with the Government of Maharashtra vide Mining Agreement dated 25-09-2006 (“Mining Agreement”) for a period of 30 years. 6.2 The Grant of Mining Lease had covered an area

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

58,017 79,03,544 4,62,54,473 Total Assessment Year 2010-11 Depreciable Written down value of assets as Description of block Rate of Depreciation value as at at March 31, for the year of assets depreciation 31/03/2010 _ 2010 63,81,135 10% 70,90,150 7,09,015 Building

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and has wrongly ignored to consider the law laid down by various courts, disallowing valid contentions of the Appellant on relevant, untenable and unlawful reasons. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) has erred in construing the intangible assets acquired by the Appellant as 'self generated asset' ignoring that the Company is a separate entity

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

Section 14A of the Act to the extent of old investment is set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer with same direction as given for the Assessment Year 2006-07. Since there is a dividend income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 therefore the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 92 of the Act applies. In support of the assessee’s claim that the price received by assessee from its AE for services rendered in the form of carrying out licensed manufacturing activity, is at arm’s length, the assessee filed the transfer pricing study adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determination

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

58,824. The learned ACIT has also erred in law and on fact in denying the relief claimed by the Appellant under section 10AA of the Act on the incremental revenue pursuant to the Advance Pricing Arrangement entered by the Appellant. 3.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by holding that the Appellant did not have

DCIT vs. M/S JUPITER CAPIAL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

depreciation: on air craft of Rs.21,00,08,528/- is allowed. However, findings of the Assessing Officer is that air craft hire charges received of Rs.2,69,80,969/-. This include an amount of Rs.25,70,408/- and Rs.15,88,333 received from M/s Laxmi Mines and Minerals and M/s Obalapuram Mining Company Ltd respectively and balance from subsidiary/associates concern

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

58,820/- by invoking section 14 A read with Rule 8D of the Act. Assessing Officer observed that assessee incurred software expenses amounting to Rs.9,36,51,134/-, but in respect of expenses amounting to Rs.7,66,68,466/- it had not deducted tax at source. Accordingly, same was disallowed under provisions of section

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation on goodwill as a principle settled by the Hon'ble SC. 57. The AO rejected the value of goodwill by invoking the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act and holding that the said acquisition is a colourable device to reduce tax liability, on the allegation that the Appellant failed to furnish any details in relation

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

58,09,987. 11. The learned assessing officer has erred in invoking rule 8D(2)(iii) for the purpose of making disallowance under section 14A without demonstrating satisfaction in terms of subsection 2 of section 14A as to why the disallowance made by the assessee under section 14A amounting to Rs. 1,72,86,259 is not correct having regard