https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334423 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld where the assessee claimed capital expenditure as revenue expenditure under the Indo-Mauritius DTAA and also sought depreciation on the same assets, creating a double deduction. The Tribunal treated the claim as lacking a reasonable legal foundation because the treaty-based explanation was unsupported by contrary judicial authority or any other legal basis, and held that disclosure of the claim in the return did not by itself establish bona fides. It further held that the quantum outcome did not control penalty proceedings, which had to be tested on the explanation advanced in the penalty matter. The claim therefore amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:02:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334423 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld where the assessee claimed capital expenditure as revenue expenditure under the Indo-Mauritius DTAA and also sought depreciation on the same assets, creating a double deduction. The Tribunal treated the claim as lacking a reasonable legal foundation because the treaty-based explanation was unsupported by contrary judicial authority or any other legal basis, and held that disclosure of the claim in the return did not by itself establish bona fides. It further held that the quantum outcome did not control penalty proceedings, which had to be tested on the explanation advanced in the penalty matter. The claim therefore amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334423