https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357333 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the disallowance of depreciation did not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c) as it did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared all relevant information in the return of income, including the capital subsidy received and the value of fixed assets. The submissions and legal precedents cited supported the conclusion that the mere disallowance of depreciation does not constitute inaccurate particulars of income. en-us Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:58:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357333 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the disallowance of depreciation did not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c) as it did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared all relevant information in the return of income, including the capital subsidy received and the value of fixed assets. The submissions and legal precedents cited supported the conclusion that the mere disallowance of depreciation does not constitute inaccurate particulars of income. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357333