https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372816 The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified due to the debatable nature of the depreciation claim and the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The tribunal found previous instances where similar depreciation claims were allowed by revenue authorities, distinguishing the case law cited by the department. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s penalty order, emphasizing that the assessee had disclosed details and filed necessary documents regarding the depreciation claim. en-us Wed, 26 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Dec 2018 07:35:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372816 The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified due to the debatable nature of the depreciation claim and the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The tribunal found previous instances where similar depreciation claims were allowed by revenue authorities, distinguishing the case law cited by the department. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s penalty order, emphasizing that the assessee had disclosed details and filed necessary documents regarding the depreciation claim. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372816