https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151648 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the assessee's depreciation claim on a composite land-and-building valuation had been accepted in earlier years, and the assessee had obtained valuation support and identified the land component for tax purposes. The disallowance linked to section 80HHD(4) also reflected a bona fide view that motor cycles used in tour operations qualified as utilisation of the reserve. On these facts, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and a mere unsustainable claim or bona fide mistake did not attract penalty. The penalty was therefore deleted. en-us Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:39:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151648 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the assessee's depreciation claim on a composite land-and-building valuation had been accepted in earlier years, and the assessee had obtained valuation support and identified the land component for tax purposes. The disallowance linked to section 80HHD(4) also reflected a bona fide view that motor cycles used in tour operations qualified as utilisation of the reserve. On these facts, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and a mere unsustainable claim or bona fide mistake did not attract penalty. The penalty was therefore deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151648