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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

80G of the Act.\n5.4 We also note that the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the\ncase of Allegis Services (Inia) Pvt. Ltd. VS. ACIT in ITA\nNo.1693/Bang/2019 dated 29.4.2020 held as under:\n10. Section 135 of Companies Act, 2013 requires companies with CSR\nobligations, with effect from 01/04/2014.\nFinance (No.2) Act, 2014 inserted new Explanation 2 to subsection

M/S. FNF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2016-17

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

FIRST AMERICAN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years : 2016 – 17

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

M/S. ALLEGIS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016 – 17

depreciation and development rebate. • Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or Page 6 of 10 A. Y : 2016 – 17 company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section. • Section 35CCD provides

JSW INDUSTRIAL GASES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

80G of the Act, more so in view of such claimed not being prohibited by the said section, it would lead to double disallowance. Therefore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer ought to be set aside. The learned AR placed reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income tax Act, 1961 Act Page 2 of 13 on the additions made during the relevant Assessment Year to the Block of Assets-`Computers including Computer Software' ii. Denying the benefit of deduction amounting to Rs 7,71,505 under Section 80G

M/S. INFINERA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2589/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

80G of the Act. The relevant discussions made in the above said case are extracted below:- “10. Section 135 of Companies Act, 2013 requires companies with CSR obligations, with effect from 01/04/2014. Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 inserted new Explanation 2 to sub- section (1) of section 37, so as to clarify that for purposes of sub- section (1) of section

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

80G. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal held that additional depreciation on the windmill is allowable, and transformer and power evacuation infrastructure are integral parts of the windmill, eligible for higher depreciation. The leasehold/access rights payment was allowed as a revenue expenditure.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections

UNION BANK OF INDIA( ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Circle – 2(1), Corporation Bank), Mangalore. 239, Union Bank Niwas, Vidhan Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Pan : Aaacc 7245 E Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2022 O R D E R

depreciation should be claimed on the amount of CENVAT credit availed. It was the plea of the assessee that it is because of this legal requirement that the assessee did not capitalize the aforesaid amount to the capital asset but charged the same in the Profit and Loss Account. This claim for deduction on the basis of write

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

80G of the Act ignoring that in instant case assessee has\nnot satisfied conditions set out in said section to get the said deduction'?\n\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of Rs.276,67,93,689/- as\ndeduction from overseas revenue on account of state taxes paid outside India.\n\n7.\nThe CIT(A) erred in considering

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

80G of the Act ignoring that in instant case assessee has not satisfied conditions set out in said section to get the said deduction'? 6. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of Rs.276,67,93,689/- as deduction from overseas revenue on account of state taxes paid outside India. 7. The CIT(A) erred in considering the amount

ITI EDUCATION COMMITTEE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

depreciation from the surplus generated, the profits would only 18% of the gross receipts. He further submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Visvesvaraya Technological University Vs. ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 279 (Kar) relied upon by the Assessing Officer came to be over-ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. 41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than referred to in Clause (b). According to clause

M/S. HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY),BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on plant and machinery by re-characterising the assets as furniture and fixtures without any cogent reasons. 4.2 The Ld. AO has failed to appropriately apply the classification of assets as given in section 2(11) of the Income tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and also erred in ignoring the classification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. " 56. Thus, the understanding of the above amendment to section 115JB is where a company which are not required u/s 211 (129) of the Companies Act to prepare their

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. " 56. Thus, the understanding of the above amendment to section 115JB is where a company which are not required u/s 211 (129) of the Companies Act to prepare their