<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Penalty upheld under Section 271(1)(c) for inflated and bogus asset depreciation claims</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90842</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on the assessee for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming depreciation on inflated and bogus asset purchases. The tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s contention that no penalty should apply to the disallowance related to inflated asset costs, despite a favorable quantum decision in a separate case, finding no merit in this argument. Regarding depreciation on bogus assets, the tribunal noted the assessee&#039;s acceptance of the CIT(A) order and affirmed the findings that the purchased assets were from non-genuine parties, corroborated by departmental investigations and admissions from associated group officials. The tribunal distinguished the present facts from.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:40:18 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:40:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty upheld under Section 271(1)(c) for inflated and bogus asset depreciation claims</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90842</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on the assessee for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming depreciation on inflated and bogus asset purchases. The tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s contention that no penalty should apply to the disallowance related to inflated asset costs, despite a favorable quantum decision in a separate case, finding no merit in this argument. Regarding depreciation on bogus assets, the tribunal noted the assessee&#039;s acceptance of the CIT(A) order and affirmed the findings that the purchased assets were from non-genuine parties, corroborated by departmental investigations and admissions from associated group officials. The tribunal distinguished the present facts from.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:40:18 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>