M/S SUBEX LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

c) "long-term borrowings" means— (i) any money borrowed by the company from the Government or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India or the Industrial Page 5 of 38 Credit and Investment Corporation of India or any other financial institution which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36] or any banking institution

M/S SERENDIPITY INFOLABS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Serendipity Infolabs Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, (amalgamate with ANI Central Circle-6(1)(1), Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,) Vs. Bengaluru. Regent Insignia, #414, 3rd Floor, 4th Block, 17th Main, 100 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

c) New quality assurance block; which is clearly an addition to an already existing building. The proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, for the year under consideration provides for the disallowance of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business. The ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

35D of the Act. Even though ITAT did not agree on the other issue of excluding securities premium and assessee is in appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the assessee submitted that the eligible amount based on the ITAT order in this regard as under:- Sl. Particulars Amount No. (in INR) 1. GDR Face Value (as already allowed

BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

35D of the Act if the conditions prescribed in that sec. are existing but this is not a case that share issue expenses are eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. Hence, this judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is also not applicable in the present case. 17. The third judgment cited by him is the judgment

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowing an amount of INR 2,377,290 under Section 35D in relation to the expenditure incurred for increase in authorized share capital. IT(TP)A No.2806/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 51 16. That the learned AO erred in consequently levying interest under section 234B of the Act. Under any case, the levy of interest is unwarranted and highly excessive. That

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

ADDL.CIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

ADDL.CI.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.EAGLETON PROPERTY HOLDINGS CIRCLE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eagleton Property Holdings, Income Tax #4, Model House Street, Circle -7(2)(1), Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 004. Pan : Aabfe 9867 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Arun Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 7.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

disallowance of the claims of the assessee under Section 80IB(10). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 14.11.2012 allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. On further appeal by the revenue the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 21.03.2014 upheld the order

M/S, SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.2249(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Subex Limited, Rmz Ecoworld, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahlli, Bangalore-560 103 Panno.Aabcs9255R Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent & Ita No.2361(B)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) (By Revenue) Appellant By : Shri Aditya Raipuria, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

C”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2249(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s Subex Limited, RMZ Ecoworld, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahlli, Bangalore-560 103 PANNo.AABCS9255R Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent And ITA No.2361(B)/2019 (Assessment year : 2007-08) (By Revenue) Appellant

BIOCON LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallowed as per provisions of section 115JB of the Act. 7. The Ld CIT has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the computation of foreign exchange losses were in accordance to the Accounting Standard ("AS") 11 and are hence not arbitrary expenses but towards ascertained liabilities on account of foreign currency translations

SANYO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1195/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Sanyo India Private Limited, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.45, 2Nd Floor, Jublee Building, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Museum Road, Bangalore-560 025 Pan Aajcs 0730M Appellant Respondent.

2. The learned A.O. has placed incorrect and inappropriate reliance on the judicial precedent in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Central), Calcutta (82 ITR 363) (SC) without considering the facts of the case. 3. The learned A.O. has erred in law, by carrying out an arbitrary adjustment on account of advertisement and publicity expense

M/S VALUE & BUDGET HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.1370/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.1387/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 ITA No.1388/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Value & Budget Housing The Deputy Commissioner of Corporation Private Limited Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(2) v. No.29/4, 3rd Floor Bangalore. H.M.Stafford House, 7th Cross Vasanthnagar Extn.7th Cross Off Millers Road Bangalore