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

5). The appellant submits that even though section 80A(1) is not applicable to section 10AA, the reference to 80A(1) in the decision of Supreme Court would not make the decision inapplicable to section 10AA for the following reasons: (a) Section 80A(1) only provides that deduction u/s 80C to 80U would be available to the assessee. Therefore section

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

5). The appellant submits that even though section 80A(1) is not applicable to section 10AA, the reference to 80A(1) in the decision of Supreme Court would not make the decision inapplicable to section 10AA for the following reasons: (a) Section 80A(1) only provides that deduction u/s 80C to 80U would be available to the assessee. Therefore section

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

5). The appellant submits that even though section 80A(1) is not applicable to\nsection 10AA, the reference to 80A(1) in the decision of Supreme Court would\nnot make the decision inapplicable to section 10AA for the following reasons:\n(a) Section 80A(1) only provides that deduction u/s 80C to 80U would be available\nto the assessee. Therefore

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NSL SUGARS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

depreciation etc relating to the eligible business may actually have been set off against the profits of the assessee from the non eligible business or other sources. Thus the gross total income referred in section 80A(1) and (2), 80AB and 80B(5

M/S NSL SUGARS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

depreciation etc relating to the eligible business may actually have been set off against the profits of the assessee from the non eligible business or other sources. Thus the gross total income referred in section 80A(1) and (2), 80AB and 80B(5

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

80A(5) and 80AC, it emerges that to make a claim u/s 801A, the assessee is simply required to file the Page 13 of 19 return of income u/s 139(1) and the claim can be made in the revised return of income also i.e. there is no bar for making the claim even in the return of income filed

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

80A(2) and 80B(5) which operate in different spheres. As observed earlier Section 80-I(6) deals with actual computation of deduction whereas Section 80-I(1) deals with the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at the total income of the assessee and, therefore while interpreting Section 80-I(1), which also refers

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

80A(2) and 80B(5) which operate in different spheres. As observed earlier Section 80-I(6) deals with actual computation of deduction whereas Section 80-I(1) deals with the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at the total income of the assessee and, therefore while interpreting Section 80-I(1), which also refers

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

depreciation is in the nature of business expenditure. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to reduce expenses on communication, travel and other expenses incurred in foreign currency both from export turnover and as well as from total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

depreciation is in the nature of business expenditure. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to reduce expenses on communication, travel and other expenses incurred in foreign currency both from export turnover and as well as from total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction

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

80A(4) of the Act, double benefits cannot be allowed to the assessee for the same income under different provisions of the Act. 15.1 In this context, we note that the learned AR for the assessee submitted before us that no deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act was claimed in respect of wages paid to the employee of Coimbatore

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

80A(4) of the Act, double benefits cannot be allowed to the assessee for the same income under different provisions of the Act. 15.1 In this context, we note that the learned AR for the assessee submitted before us that no deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act was claimed in respect of wages paid to the employee of Coimbatore

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5) PRESENTLY CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Depreciation to be carried forward Rs.135,38,91,829.” 5. Consequent to the rectification order, no deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act was allowed and additionally set off of 5 M/s.Karnataka Power Corporation Limited. brought forward loss was reduced by Rs.80.55 crore. The A.O. held that “……….As per the provisions of section 80A

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

sections like 80HHC, 80-IA, etc. The Parliament was aware of the various restricting and limiting provisions like s. 80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80A, sections where reference is made to section 80-IA, or to transactions as may be prescribed by the Board, if aggregate amount of all such domestic transactions exceeds Rupees 5 crore in a year. It is further proposed to amend the meaning of related persons as provided in section 40A to include companies having the same holding company. This

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80A, sections where reference is made to section 80-IA, or to transactions as may be prescribed by the Board, if aggregate amount of all such domestic transactions exceeds Rupees 5 crore in a year. It is further proposed to amend the meaning of related persons as provided in section 40A to include companies having the same holding company. This

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation or the question of allowing it u/s 35(1)(iv) as Scientific research expenses shall become academic and we are not adjudicating them”. Accordingly we partly allow the ground No. 4 to 4.4 raised by the assessee. 7. The fifth ground relates to the transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO/AO. In the original grounds of appeal that were filed

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

80A would clearly signify that such a\ndeduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as\nspecified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act.\n106. Thus, it has been urged by the assessee by way of the additional ground that the ld.\nCIT(A), Mumbai erred in allowing the deduction in respect