https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177572 The Tribunal allowed the majority of the depreciation and investment allowance claims by the assessee, except for the depreciation on the UHP Furnace. The disallowance of the UHP Furnace depreciation was not considered grounds for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the Tribunal found the claims to be made in good faith. The penalty was canceled, emphasizing that doubts raised by the AO were insufficient to justify penalizing the assessee. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was revoked. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:19:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177572 The Tribunal allowed the majority of the depreciation and investment allowance claims by the assessee, except for the depreciation on the UHP Furnace. The disallowance of the UHP Furnace depreciation was not considered grounds for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the Tribunal found the claims to be made in good faith. The penalty was canceled, emphasizing that doubts raised by the AO were insufficient to justify penalizing the assessee. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was revoked. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177572