https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12693 The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1981-82. The Court found that the penalty was not justified as the assessee's claim for depreciation and investment allowance on newly installed machinery was made bona fide and based on a valid legal precedent. The Court held that the withdrawal of the claim and the difference of opinion with the Assessing Officer did not warrant the imposition of a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. en-us Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12693 The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1981-82. The Court found that the penalty was not justified as the assessee's claim for depreciation and investment allowance on newly installed machinery was made bona fide and based on a valid legal precedent. The Court held that the withdrawal of the claim and the difference of opinion with the Assessing Officer did not warrant the imposition of a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12693