M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

BOSCH GLOBAL SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(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

section 10AA of the Act also mentions “Manufacture or produce article or things or provide any services” meaning thereby software development services is different from manufacturing or production of article or things. The AO concluded that computer software is distinct from an article or thing, and additional depreciation is allowable only on plant and machinery installed by an assessee engaged

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

7,07,68,441 3,94,57,472 23,25,00,199 additional depreciation 5.5 It was also contended that assuming without admitting that additional depreciation is to be disallowed, the increase in business profits of EOU and SEZ units as a result of disallowance of additional depreciation is eligible for deduction under section

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

94,50,304/- under section 40(a)(i) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.2 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the impugned payments were not chargeable to tax in India, not liable for TDS under section 195 and hence not to be disallowed under section 40(a)(i). 4.3 Even otherwise, the disallowance

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

94,21,834 Insurance 4,53,445 Miscellaneous Expenses 5,19,235 Financial Expenses (net) 32,69,26,563 Depreciation 14,00,67,258 ------------------------------ 63,43,10,718 --------------------------- Page 4 of 12 4. On the basis of the above the Assessing Officer has mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee has declared the rental income on the property

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

M/S VECTRA INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

7(1) (2) 1. (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. AO') has erred on facts and in law in assessing the Profit of the appellant at Rs. 35,94,321/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 1,22,61,807/-. The order of the Ld. AO is bad in law and on the facts to that extent, apart from being

M/S. LTIMINDTREE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO M/S. MINDTREE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7,60,896 7.5% 57,067 4 Office 2,31,943 15% 34,791 Equipment 20,085 7.5% 1,507 Total Depreciation 2,23,01,237 2.1. The assessee was asked to furnish evidence in respect of the acquisition of new assets. The assessee furnished details of the list of fixed assets addition during the FY 2005-06 and enclosed

DCIT vs. M/S JUPITER CAPIAL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

94,11,402/- holding that Page 2 of 21 out of the borrowings a sum of Rs.17 crores was paid towards the cost of an aircraft and the investment was made out of its own funds without appreciating the fact that the interest paid to bank for purchase of aircraft was Rs. 38,95,273/-only and for the purpose

SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SHIMOGA

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation of earlier years against the current year income of Rs. 8.5 crores. The Ld. Assessing Officer, on selection of scrutiny, found that Assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Ahmedasbad Urban Development Authority. The Ld. Assessing Officer in absence of any claim

SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SHIMOGA

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation of earlier years against the current year income of Rs. 8.5 crores. The Ld. Assessing Officer, on selection of scrutiny, found that Assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Ahmedasbad Urban Development Authority. The Ld. Assessing Officer in absence of any claim

SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SHIMOGA

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation of earlier years against the current year income of Rs. 8.5 crores. The Ld. Assessing Officer, on selection of scrutiny, found that Assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Ahmedasbad Urban Development Authority. The Ld. Assessing Officer in absence of any claim

M/S I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

7. Further, it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has relied upon certain decisions to support its contention that differential price paid by it was for goodwill and that goodwill is eligible for depreciation. As regards the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd.(supra), the said ruling