K R MAHESHA,MADDUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2016-17

section 44AA of the Act, the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act. 6. The Ld. PCIT examined the assessment record and took the view that the action of the A.O. in granting depreciation

R GOVINDE GOWDA,MANDYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

section 44AA of the Act, it appears that the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act. 6. The Ld. PCIT examined the assessment record and took the view that the action of the A.O. in granting depreciation

SIDDAPPA B T,MANDYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

section 44AA of the Act, it appears that the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act. 6. The Ld. PCIT examined the assessment record and took the view that the action of the A.O. in granting depreciation

VDB INFRA AND REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271A of the Act. 2.1 Facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying on real estate development business. During the previous year it has converted its own 2 acres prime Bangalore site into 117 flats (18 floors high rise building with 3 floors underground parking) and achieved a turnover of Rs. 50,85,11,249/-. It claimed various