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 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

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 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

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 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 5 Addition under section 14A of the Act 5.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making an addition under section 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") 5.2 The Learned CIT(A) has erred

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

97% 8. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. – 33.73% Software services Count 8 Median 14.12% 35th Percentile 2.10% 65th Percentile 22.99% 7. The operating margin of the assessee is computed at 14.08% and the assessee therefore concluded that the international transaction of software development services rendered by the assessee to its AE is within ALP as follows:- Total in INR Particulars

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

section 37 commission paid : 29421834 Depreciation as per Profit and Loss Account : 140067258 TOTAL ADDITIONS U/s. 28 to 44DA 169489092 Expenses considered under other head / Exp related to Exempt income Exp. Considered under other head-Interest : 278952800 Exp. Considered under other head-Property Tax : 133907498 Total Expenses considered under other Head/ 412860298 Exp Related to Exempt Income TOTAL ADDITION

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. TARALABALU BRUHANMATT, CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

section 143(1) of the Act, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 11/03/2014 at total income at nil. While doing so, the AO has not allowed depreciation of Rs.9,97

ITO, BANGALORE vs. SHARDDHA TRUST, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoincome-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Shraddha Trust, No.37/10, Yellappa Chetty Layout, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru-560042. … Respondent Pan: Aacts 7373J

section 143(1) of the Act, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 11/03/2014 at total income at nil. While doing so, the AO has not allowed depreciation of Rs.9,97

ITO, BANGALORE vs. STRACEY MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2011-12 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 143(1) of the Act, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 01/03/2013 at total income of Rs.21,89,190/-. While doing so, the AO has not allowed depreciation of Rs.19,97

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

depreciation by the assessee company. The AO invoked the provisions of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Act and restricted the value of intangible at Rs.19,60,780/-, as already recorded in the books of Indus Seeds as on 31.10.2014 the date immediately before the said concern was taken over by the assessee company. 3. During appellate proceedings

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

depreciation under section 32. In view of the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corpn. Ltd. [1981] 127 ITR 97

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

Section 115JB(2)(iii) of the Act, the book profits have to be computed after reducing the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, as per the books of accounts and for the purposes of this clause; a) the loss shall not include depreciation, and b) the provisions of this clause shall not apply

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

Section 115JB(2)(iii) of the Act, the book profits have to be computed after reducing the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, as per the books of accounts and for the purposes of this clause; a) the loss shall not include depreciation, and b) the provisions of this clause shall not apply

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

DCIT, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 211 of the Companies Act. The said adjustment was primarily in the nature of contra adjustment in the P & L Account and not a case of effective credit in the P & L Account (as contemplated in clause (i) of explanation). The credit in the P & L Account implies that the P & L Account per se has been effectively credited

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