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

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

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

depreciation on intangible assets.\n46. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its\ngrounds of appeal for the AY 2018-19 is identical to the issue raised by\nthe assessee in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 for the assessment year 2017-\n18. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 shall also be\napplicable

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

depreciation on intangible assets.\n46.\nAt the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its\ngrounds of appeal for the AY 2018-19 is identical to the issue raised by\nthe assessee in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 for the assessment year 2017-\n18. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 shall also be\napplicable

ASST.C.I.T., BELLARY vs. M/S HOTHUR TRADERS 100% EOU, BELLARY

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita No.32/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, No.85,6,7&8, Infantry Road, Cantonment, Bellary. . Respondent Pan –Aaefh7705H. Co No.55/Bang/2016 (By Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Nagendra Prasad, Cit Respondent By : Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2018

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the ITA Nos.20/B/15 & 32/B/16 CO No.55/B/16 18 installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2 : Where in the case

M/S. REGIONAL OILSEEDS GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,CHITRADURGA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue\nstands dismissed

depreciation and claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.\nLater, a revised return was filed declaring a gross total income of Rs. 4,37,00,195/- and the total\nincome of Rs. 1,61,03,690/- after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act.\nPage 4 of 23\nITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016\n3.\nOn December

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

7A) "Assessing Officer" means the 6Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 or any other provision of this Act, and the 7Additional Commissioner or 8Additional Director

M/S THOMSON REUTERS INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

7A) are applicable only in the cases of an amalgamation or demerger and thus do not apply in cases of a slump sale. The DRP upheld the disallowance in its entirety.” 5. The ld. DR of revenue could not point out any difference in the facts in the present year and therefore, we find no reason to take a contrary

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTALS & DETECTORS (I) LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Saint Gobain Crystals & Detectors (I)Ltd Sy.No.171/2, Maruthi Indl.Estate Hoodi Rajapalya, Whitefield Main Road, Bangalore-48. … Respondent Pan:Aaacb 6794 R

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A

M/S. SJR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2009-10

depreciation claim to the extent of Rs.5,82,576/-. However, the Assessee requested that as this mistake was apparent on the face of the record and was rectifiable by the O under section 154, the proceedings under section 263 should be dropped on this point. 2.2 As regards the aspect of incorrect allowance of deduction under section

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

depreciation should be allowed. With these observations we allow the relevant grounds of appeal for statistical purpose. . Page 12 of 18 20. As is clear from the above extract, the Tribunal was dealing with the question whether the new machinery or plant should be used by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article

M/S THOMSON REUTERS INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed/ treated as allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. S. Jayaraman

depreciation were incorporated. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is on appeal with the following grounds: IT(TP)A.1206/Bang/2011 Page - 5 10. That the learned Assessing Officer and the learned Panel erred in consequently levying interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. IT(TP)A.1206/Bang/2011 Page - 6 07. Transfer Pricing issues : Provision of SWD services segment

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

depreciation is admissible under s. 32, shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-s. (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-s. (1) for any relevant previous year shall be—(a) An amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub- s. (2) (such

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure