https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211640 The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified. The appellant had acted bona fide, disclosed all material facts, and the claim for depreciation, though rejected, was based on a plausible legal interpretation. The Court distinguished between a false claim and a debatable legal issue, ultimately determining that the appellant's claim was legally tenable. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant with no order as to costs. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211640 The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified. The appellant had acted bona fide, disclosed all material facts, and the claim for depreciation, though rejected, was based on a plausible legal interpretation. The Court distinguished between a false claim and a debatable legal issue, ultimately determining that the appellant's claim was legally tenable. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211640