https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754919 The ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely for claiming higher depreciation rate on biometric devices by treating them as computers instead of plant and machinery. The assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and the claim was supported by judicial precedents, making it a bona fide interpretation issue rather than furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd precedent, the tribunal ruled that disallowance of depreciation claim alone does not justify penalty imposition. The penalty was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754919 The ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely for claiming higher depreciation rate on biometric devices by treating them as computers instead of plant and machinery. The assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and the claim was supported by judicial precedents, making it a bona fide interpretation issue rather than furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd precedent, the tribunal ruled that disallowance of depreciation claim alone does not justify penalty imposition. The penalty was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754919