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

disallowance of the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 4. The facts in brief

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

Disallowing the Appellant's claim of Rs 24,47,283 towards additional 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

M/S MAXIM INDIA INTERGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

32(1)(iia) of the Act. 23. The assessee claimed additional depreciation @ 20% on the new computers purchased by it in terms of sec.32(1)(iia) of the Act. The AO noticed that, as per sec.32(1)(iia) of the Act, the additional depreciation is allowable on the cost of Plant & Machinery, when the assessee is engaged in the business

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

Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation made under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act 4.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance of depreciation for Rs. 2,49,45,801/- only. 12. The AO during the assessment proceeding observed that the assessee claimed depreciation at 80% along with additional depreciation of 20%, aggregating to ₹9,04,93,001, on the windmill. The AO examined the provisions of section 32(1)(iia

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowance of the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 17. The assessee, in its return

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowance of the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 17. The assessee, in its return

HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,HASSAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, HASSAN

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

disallowed the sum of Rs. 30,20,002/- representing additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act and added

M/S HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD ,HASSAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, HASSAN

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

section 32(1)(iia). The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee was engaged only in the manufacture

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

iia) of sub-section (1) of\nsection 132 ?\n(4) Afford the authorised officer necessary facility to look into the electronic\nrecord as provided under clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132 ?\n(5) Seized any book of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery,\netc. ?\n(6) Placed any marks of identification, on any books of account, other

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.731/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, Ltu, No.66/3, Adjacent To Lrde, Bangalore. Byrasandra, C V Raman Nagar, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaact 5445M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) (Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 6.1.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2020

section 32(1)( iia). The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee was engaged only in the manufacture

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

32(1)(iia) of the Act is clarificatory in nature and hence would apply to earlier years ITA Nos.10 & 26/Bang/2020 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation, Bangalore Page 11 of 21 also. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of claim of additional depreciation. The revenue is aggrieved. 8.2 We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

32(1)(iia) of the Act is clarificatory in nature and hence would apply to earlier years ITA Nos.10 & 26/Bang/2020 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation, Bangalore Page 11 of 21 also. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of claim of additional depreciation. The revenue is aggrieved. 8.2 We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record

M/S. JSW STEEL PROCESSING CENTRES LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(6), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was disallowed. The AO held that assessee is not into the business of manufacture

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

iia) of sub-section (1) of\nsection 132 ?\n(4) Afford the authorised officer necessary facility to look into the electronic\nrecord as provided under clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132 ?\n(5) Seized any book of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery,\netc. ?\n(6) Placed any marks of identification, on any books of account, other

SRI. SATISH RAJAPUR,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2008-09

disallowing a sum of Rs.90,55,120/- towards additional depreciation without appreciating the submission of the Appellant that the Appellant being engaged in the business of manufacture is entitled to additional depreciation as provided under Section 32(1)(iia

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

32. One more aspect needs to be mentioned. Section 43(1) defines actual cost for the purpose of grant of depreciation etc. to mean "the actual cost of the assets to the assessee". Till the insertion of the unamended section 43A there was no provision in the Income-tax Act for adjustment of the actual cost which was fixed once

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

32. One more aspect needs to be mentioned. Section 43(1) defines actual cost for the purpose of grant of depreciation etc. to mean "the actual cost of the assets to the assessee". Till the insertion of the unamended section 43A there was no provision in the Income-tax Act for adjustment of the actual cost which was fixed once