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

79,78,889/-, being the\ndifference between the weighted deduction claimed and the actual\nexpenditure incurred (₹1,88,39,36,665 minus ₹1,25,59,57,776). The AO\nrestricted the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act to 100% of the\nactual expenditure incurred on scientific research and denied the\nadditional weighted portion solely on account

SWISS RE HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T(Tp).A No.635/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Swiss Re Healthcare Services P. Ltd, [Merged With M/S. Swiss Re Services India P. Ltd], 7Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 .. Appellant Pan : Aadcp4654P V. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)- 2, Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vinay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 23.02.2016 Pronounced On : 09.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

depreciation is not a loss but allowances under section 32 of the Act. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of (cited supra) was dealing the case held as below: "2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the tribunal that in applying section 79

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

79,78,889/-, being the\ndifference between the weighted deduction claimed and the actual\nexpenditure incurred (₹1,88,39,36,665 minus ₹1,25,59,57,776). The AO\nrestricted the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act to 100% of the\nactual expenditure incurred on scientific research and denied the\nadditional weighted portion solely on account

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)(ii) of the Act. The basis of valuation is set out in para-11 of the valuation report of Bizworth in our view is in fact an intangible acquired by the Assessee and the basis of estimation of its value is reasonable and acceptable. We therefore direct that depreciation be allowed on this intangible treating

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

79,432/-. 4.3 With regard to set off of lower of brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation against book profits for the purpose of computing tax liability u/s 115JB, the CIT(A) held that lower or loss or depreciation whichever is lower should be considered on cumulative basis for the purpose of set off against book profits while computing

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

79,432/-. 4.3 With regard to set off of lower of brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation against book profits for the purpose of computing tax liability u/s 115JB, the CIT(A) held that lower or loss or depreciation whichever is lower should be considered on cumulative basis for the purpose of set off against book profits while computing

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]

79,322 under Section 234A, INR.92,01,062 under section 234B and INR 9,20,335 under section 234C of the Act. 6. Penalty Proceedings 6.1. The learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee

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

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. MSOURCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Msource (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Wtc 3 Block, B Bagmane World Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(2), Room No.230, 2Nd Technology Centre, Floor, Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road, Vs. K. R. Puram, Marathahalli, 6Th Block, Koramangala, Outer Ring Road, Doddenekundi, Bangalore – 560 095. Bangalore-560 024. Pan No : Aaccm 2097 G Appellant Respondent C.O. No.57/Bang/2019 (In Ita No.1397/Bang/2019) M/S. Msource (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bangalore-560 024. Income Tax, Pan No : Aaccm 2097 G Bangalore – 560 095. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Girish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari:

79,829/-. However, under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, it would be at Rs.83,10,213/-. This was recomputed by AO under section 154 of the Act. Regarding depreciation

M/S. HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

section 79 of the IT Act for the purpose of disallowing the set off of brought forward business loss and depreciation

M/S. HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

section 79 of the IT Act for the purpose of disallowing the set off of brought forward business loss and depreciation

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

79,44,492/- had already been allowed for A.Y. 2011-12 as the first-year claim. Therefore, the AO could not disallow the same claim for the second year (A.Y. 2012-13). . IT(TP)A No.446 & 593/Bang/2020 Page 6 of 41 8.3 However, after considering the facts, the learned CIT(A) upheld the AO’s disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

79,44,492/- had already been allowed for A.Y. 2011-12 as the first-year claim. Therefore, the AO could not disallow the same claim for the second year (A.Y. 2012-13). . IT(TP)A No.446 & 593/Bang/2020 Page 6 of 41 8.3 However, after considering the facts, the learned CIT(A) upheld the AO’s disallowance

M/S SANDVINE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

79,826 and disallowed the additional depreciation on the computers as the assessee is in the business of marketing and presales support services to Sandvine Inc. and is not engaged in the business of manufacturing, production of an article or thing. Hence the assessee is not entitled for additional depreciation under 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

section 55 of the Act, in relation to the meaning of 'cost of acquisition' etc. This amendment recognizes that depreciation on goodwill in relation to the years prior to April 1, 2021 may have been claimed and allowed and provides for a mechanism for the adjustment of such depreciation claimed and allowed, for determining the cost of acquisition

M/S. PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation and development rebate.\n• Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and\nknowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture,\nanimal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research\ninstitutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible\nfor deduction, under this section.\n• Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 05.02.2019. In response to notice under section 153A of the Act, assessee filed return on 30.03.2019 and declared income as stated in the ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 20 of 47 above table. Thereafter, notice under section