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 ₹5,69

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 ₹5,69

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. For the reasons given above, we hold that the purchase consideration paid in excess of the value assigned to the tangible assets, has to be regarded as payment towards acquisition of goodwill which is a specie of business

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 ₹5,69

INDO NISSIN FOODS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 115JB.” 10. It was submitted that the set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss against the book profit in earlier years were as follows:- Particulars Total Brought Unabsorbed Depreciation Forward Loss Business Loss Rs. Rs. Rs. 2005-06 (AY:2006-07) 48,34,69

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 43B of the Act. 4.1 As regards disallowance of depreciation on tangible assets, the CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance by holding that no evidence was furnished evidencing incurring of any cost to acquire any such rights. ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 4 of 37 4.2 As regards disallowance of expenditure on repairs and maintenance to buildings and repairs

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 43B of the Act. 4.1 As regards disallowance of depreciation on tangible assets, the CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance by holding that no evidence was furnished evidencing incurring of any cost to acquire any such rights. ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 4 of 37 4.2 As regards disallowance of expenditure on repairs and maintenance to buildings and repairs

M/S. INDUS TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

section 32(1)(iia), as the assessee was\nengaged in the business of generation of power. The assessee furnished\ncomplete details during the assessment proceedings, including the\ndepreciation working as per the Income-tax Act and the windmill ledger\naccount.\n15. It was argued that the AO erred in holding that the assessee was\nnot eligible for additional depreciation

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

69,37,357 and also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill made by the AO. The AO passed the final order of assessment as per the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Transfer Pricing adjustment 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee had the following international transactions:- Description Amount (INR) Provision

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanshri S Jayaramanit(Tp)A No.281 /Bang/2015 (Asst. Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. M/S Novell Software Development India Pvt. Ltd., ‘Laurel, ‘Block-D, 65/2, Bagmane Tech Park, C.V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore-560 093. . Respondent

depreciation of Rs.3,69,858/- was claimed under Section 32. 27. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the payment for purchase

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

depreciation is automatic and relied on various judgements. In our opinion, it is the duty of the assessee to furnish the necessary details as called for by the authorities, so as to claim M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 23 of 29 the deduction. In the absence of such details, the lower authorities have no other option to deny

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

depreciation was also claimed on this asset. This fact was not disputed by the assessee. The Shah Bazar Site was not at all shown in the balance sheet. All the constructions under consideration, including the Fun Junction Multiplex which was classified as fixed asset in the balance sheet of the assessee, were built on this site only. There is nothing

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

depreciation was also claimed on this asset. This fact was not disputed by the assessee. The Shah Bazar Site was not at all shown in the balance sheet. All the constructions under consideration, including the Fun Junction Multiplex which was classified as fixed asset in the balance sheet of the assessee, were built on this site only. There is nothing

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

69,881 Depreciation claimed on goodwill (Intangible asset) 3,08,21,235 xx during the AY 2020-21 7.2. After taking into consideration the above submission, the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice, dated 14/09/2023, to the Assessee and in response to the same submission, dated 21/09/2023, was filed by the Assessee wherein it was contended that claim of depreciation

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

section 37 commission paid : 29421834 Depreciation as per Profit and Loss Account : 140067258 TOTAL ADDITIONS U/s. 28 to 44DA 169489092 Expenses considered under other head / Exp related to Exempt income Exp. Considered under other head-Interest : 278952800 Exp. Considered under other head-Property Tax : 133907498 Total Expenses considered under other Head/ 412860298 Exp Related to Exempt Income TOTAL ADDITION

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

69. The ld. AR submitted that invoking the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act by the. AO in the present case is totally misplaced and not justified. The said proviso does not restrict the claim of depreciation

PUTTEGOWDA RAVIKUMAR,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavputtegowda Ravikumar The Income Tax Officer-1(1) 201, Belvadi Post 21/16, 'Aayakar Bhavan' Vs. Koorgahaly, Mysore 570018 Residency Road, Nazarabad Pan – Aezpr9904H Mysore 570010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2024 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Himself Liable To Be Assessed To A Total Income Of Rs.52,96,021/- For The Impugned Assessment Year 2018-19 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Raised A Defect For Delay In Filing The Appeal, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernable from the order and hence deserves

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

69 or section 69A or section 69C or section 69D." Page 10 of 11 The intention of the legislature in introducing the amendment, as stated in the explanatory note, is to avoid unnecessary litigation and to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under section 68. Therefore