M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

80- IA of the Act is wholly misplaced. 35. The question then to be considered is, whether on a plain reading of Section 801A read with other relevant provisions in Chapter V/-A, can it be said that the quantum of deduction allowable under Section 80/A depends upon the assessee claiming or not claiming current depreciation

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

80- IA of the Act is wholly misplaced. 35. The question then to be considered is, whether on a plain reading of Section 801A read with other relevant provisions in Chapter V/-A, can it be said that the quantum of deduction allowable under Section 80/A depends upon the assessee claiming or not claiming current depreciation

M/S. QUANTUM POWER SYSTEMS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible undertaking or enterprise under this section. (8) For the purposes of this section,— ………………………………………. Page 6 of 9 (v) "Initial assessment year" means the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking or the enterprise begins to manufacture or produce articles or things, or commences operation

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 80

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

depreciation for each of the relevant other free trade zone which the Central assessment year. Government may, by notification in the (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub- Official Gazette, specify for the purposes of section (10) of section 80

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

80-\nIA of the Act is wholly misplaced.\n35. The question then to be considered is, whether on a plain reading of Section\n801A read with other relevant provisions in Chapter VI-A, can it be said that the\nquantum of deduction allowable under Section 80IA depends upon the assessee\nclaiming or not claiming current depreciation

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 80 G of the Act for the impugned payment\ndiscussed above but after necessary verification as per the provisions of\nlaw. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes.\n11. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation

MR. JITENDRA KUMAR NAHATA,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

section 801A, shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date offihing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/s 801A of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

depreciation is already absolved, it does not exist. For the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction under sub-section (5) of Section 80

M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

depreciation is already absolved, it does not exist. For the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction under sub-section (5) of Section 80

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

depreciation is already absolved, it does not exist. For the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction under sub-section (5) of Section 80

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

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

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

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

80%. ITA Nos.10 & 26/Bang/2020 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation, Bangalore Page 12 of 21 The assessee would not have been entitled to additional depreciation, if the assessee was eligible for 100% depreciation. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons and following the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. M. Satish Kumar (Supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

80%. ITA Nos.10 & 26/Bang/2020 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation, Bangalore Page 12 of 21 The assessee would not have been entitled to additional depreciation, if the assessee was eligible for 100% depreciation. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons and following the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. M. Satish Kumar (Supra

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

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

80,11,864/-, the Ld. AO allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% amounting to Rs.18,95,02,966/-, and made addition of Rs.56,85,08,898/-. 12.4. The Ld.AR submitted that, Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY 2006-07 IT(TP)A No 799/B/2015 decision dated 10.11.2017, held that, the brand building