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

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation and development rebate. • 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. • 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

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

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

M/S. INDUS TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

80G to claim such expense. This expense is certainly not allowable under section 37. 6.5 The appellant has argued that amount was collected from the students towards donation and if donation is disallowed, the same should be excluded from the scope of income. This argument is not tenable. All the receipts of a business constitute its income unless the receipt

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

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

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

Depreciation on the asset leased has to be allowed. (iii) Deduction on section 80G of Rs.5 lakh has to be allowed

HASANATH EDUCATION SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

80G(5) of the Act. The assessee is running education institution. The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has collected Rs.1,15,63,756 under building fund during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide the details and evidence for the same. The assessee submitted that the amount