M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

87,233 Plant and machinery Additional depreciation 20 23,80,92,482 Vehicles 15 2,86,667 Building 10 8,51,00,156 Furniture and fittings 10 1,11,18,409 60 1,75,36,139 Computers Total depreciation 74,43,21,086 Assessment proceedings 5.2 The AO at para 4 of the order observed that the Assessee was asked

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

87,11,726/-. 9.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the, said amount was disallowed without appreciating the fact that TDS was not deductible under section 194BB or 194B of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that identical issue arose the immediately preceding assessment year wherein this coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1848 & 1850/Bang/2019

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

87,11,726/-. 9.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the, said amount was disallowed without appreciating the fact that TDS was not deductible under section 194BB or 194B of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that identical issue arose the immediately preceding assessment year wherein this coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1848 & 1850/Bang/2019

M/S. SOGEFI MNR FILTRATION INDIA PVT LLD,BANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(2), BANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

87,95,347/-. 4. On the date of conversion of partnership into a private limited company on 22nd July 2008, all the assets and liabilities of the firm were transferred to the company at a book value and the entire current balance was treated as Un-Secured loans of partners in the books of the company. The total un-secured

M/S. SOGEFI MNR FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

87,95,347/-. 4. On the date of conversion of partnership into a private limited company on 22nd July 2008, all the assets and liabilities of the firm were transferred to the company at a book value and the entire current balance was treated as Un-Secured loans of partners in the books of the company. The total un-secured

M/S. SOGEFI MNR FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

87,95,347/-. 4. On the date of conversion of partnership into a private limited company on 22nd July 2008, all the assets and liabilities of the firm were transferred to the company at a book value and the entire current balance was treated as Un-Secured loans of partners in the books of the company. The total un-secured

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 32 of the Act. 6. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 20.04.2021 in which the TP adjustment and disallowance of provision of warranty was retained. With regard to expenditure incurred on annual license fees, the Assessing Officer has not followed the directions issued by the DRP in allowing depreciation. Aggrieved

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

depreciation of value of securities ; ITA No.288 & 318/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 50 ii) The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the classification of securities for RBI purposes would not take away the benefit which the appellant was entitled to and he ought to have appreciated that the case law referred were distinguishable and accordingly he ought to have

DCIT vs. ING VYSYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

depreciation of value of securities ; ITA No.288 & 318/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 50 ii) The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the classification of securities for RBI purposes would not take away the benefit which the appellant was entitled to and he ought to have appreciated that the case law referred were distinguishable and accordingly he ought to have

MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

87,600 and ‘book profits’ of Rs.25,20,396 under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.28.12.2006 determining the loss under

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MAKINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

87,600 and ‘book profits’ of Rs.25,20,396 under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.28.12.2006 determining the loss under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

section 2(29BA) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied on the ratios laid down in the following judgments, justifying the claim of additional depreciation: 1. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata v. Bengal Beverages (P) Ltd (2017) 87

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

section 2(29BA) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied on the ratios laid down in the following judgments, justifying the claim of additional depreciation: 1. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata v. Bengal Beverages (P) Ltd (2017) 87

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation on such sum on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the assessing officer. Without prejudice, the rate, period and on what

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation on such sum on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the assessing officer. Without prejudice, the rate, period and on what

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation on such sum on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the assessing officer. Without prejudice, the rate, period and on what

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation on such sum on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the assessing officer. Without prejudice, the rate, period and on what