https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185288 The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal against the deletion of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for Assessment Year 1996-97. The dispute arose from the assessee's claim of 100% depreciation on machinery for research and development, which was initially allowed at 25% by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) later directed 100% depreciation, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating the machinery was for testing defects, not R&D. Despite the department's arguments of income concealment, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, citing the lack of consensus on the depreciation issue among authorities. en-us Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Aug 2016 11:03:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185288 The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal against the deletion of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for Assessment Year 1996-97. The dispute arose from the assessee's claim of 100% depreciation on machinery for research and development, which was initially allowed at 25% by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) later directed 100% depreciation, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating the machinery was for testing defects, not R&D. Despite the department's arguments of income concealment, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, citing the lack of consensus on the depreciation issue among authorities. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185288