https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346507 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the related quantum addition on non-existing assets had already been deleted, because the basis for alleging concealment or inaccurate particulars no longer survived. The article also notes that depreciation disallowed under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and Explanation 10 did not justify penalty, since the assessee had disclosed the relevant grants, subsidies and contributions and the dispute was only over an unsustainable legal claim. A mere rejection of a claim in law, without false facts, does not by itself establish concealment. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:45:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346507 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the related quantum addition on non-existing assets had already been deleted, because the basis for alleging concealment or inaccurate particulars no longer survived. The article also notes that depreciation disallowed under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and Explanation 10 did not justify penalty, since the assessee had disclosed the relevant grants, subsidies and contributions and the dispute was only over an unsustainable legal claim. A mere rejection of a claim in law, without false facts, does not by itself establish concealment. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346507