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

68. The next issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 4 of the appeal pertains to disallowances of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed on account of R&D facility. 69. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2019-20 is identical

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

68. The next issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 4 of the appeal pertains to disallowances of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed on account of R&D facility. 69. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2019-20 is identical

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

68. The next issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 4 of the appeal pertains to disallowances of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed on account of R&D facility. 69. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2019-20 is identical

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

section 71 of the Income tax Act. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has entertained a belief that what was claimed for set off against the income assessed u/s 68 was unabsorbed depreciation

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance\nunder this Act has been computed;]\n31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of\ninformation or document received from the prescribed income-tax\nauthority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

depreciation allowance or any other allowance\nunder this Act has been computed;]\n31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of\ninformation or document received from the prescribed income-tax\nauthority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

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

section 144B of the Act.\n18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2017-\n18, much after the withdrawal of remand powers. The assessee had\nalready furnished complete details regarding the nature and duration of\nsoftware licences before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there was no\nlegal justification for the learned CIT(A) to remand the issue back

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiita 2535/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 68 of the Act. 4.3 On the other hand the Ld.Counsel submitted that the findings recorded by the Ld. AO was purely on suspicion and surmises. He submitted that, assessee had in fact installed the solar power plant system on which depreciation

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

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 32(1) of the Act and therefore depreciation is allowable on goodwill. IT(TP)A No.1537/Bang/2012 Page 46 of 58 68

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

section 144B of the Act.\n18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2017-\n18, much after the withdrawal of remand powers. The assessee had\nalready furnished complete details regarding the nature and duration of\nsoftware licences before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there was no\nlegal justification for the learned CIT(A) to remand the issue back

RANJITPURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 68 of the Act and (ii) disallowance of depreciation on helicopter amounting to Rs.4,01,46,737. On appeal

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

depreciation allowance or any other allowance\nunder this Act has been computed;]\n\n31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of\ninformation or document received from the prescribed income-tax\nauthority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

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

68,535 and accordingly the turnover of companies more than Rs.200 crores need to be excluded from the final set of comparables. He relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Xchanging Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT, IT(TP)A No.294/Bang/2021 dated 12.5.2022. 12. The DRP relied on the orders of the lower authorities

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

68,441 3,94,57,472 23,25,00,199 additional depreciation 5.5 It was also contended that assuming without admitting that additional depreciation is to be disallowed, the increase in business profits of EOU and SEZ units as a result of disallowance of additional depreciation is eligible for deduction under section