https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251061 The case involved a dispute over the claim of 100% depreciation on imported machinery for the assessment year 1987-1988 by an optical equipment industry. The Assessing Authority disallowed the claim and imposed a penalty, which was upheld in subsequent appeals. The court emphasized the necessity of actual usage, not just installation, for depreciation claims. It differentiated between intentional misstatements and genuine claims, ruling in favor of the applicant on penalty imposition. The judgment highlighted the importance of honest disclosure and legal interpretation in tax matters, ultimately favoring the applicant and dismissing one reference case while allowing another. en-us Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251061 The case involved a dispute over the claim of 100% depreciation on imported machinery for the assessment year 1987-1988 by an optical equipment industry. The Assessing Authority disallowed the claim and imposed a penalty, which was upheld in subsequent appeals. The court emphasized the necessity of actual usage, not just installation, for depreciation claims. It differentiated between intentional misstatements and genuine claims, ruling in favor of the applicant on penalty imposition. The judgment highlighted the importance of honest disclosure and legal interpretation in tax matters, ultimately favoring the applicant and dismissing one reference case while allowing another. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251061