https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79056 The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for a difference in depreciation treatment of a biometric device. The issue was whether the device should be classified under 'Plant and Machinery' or 'Computer' block for depreciation. The ITAT found the claim was not false but a matter of interpretation. Merely disagreeing with the claim does not warrant a penalty if the assessee provided all relevant details. Citing a precedent from Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:44:20 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79056 The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for a difference in depreciation treatment of a biometric device. The issue was whether the device should be classified under 'Plant and Machinery' or 'Computer' block for depreciation. The ITAT found the claim was not false but a matter of interpretation. Merely disagreeing with the claim does not warrant a penalty if the assessee provided all relevant details. Citing a precedent from Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Highlights Income Tax Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:44:20 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79056