https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779732 ITAT (Indore-AT) held that penalty under s.271(1)(c) could not be sustained for denial of an additional depreciation claim under s.32(1)(iia) where an identical claim was allowed in the preceding AY, finding no furnishing of inaccurate particulars. However, penalty was sustained for disallowance of a tax deduction under s.40(a)(ii), since the deduction was clearly disallowable as submitted in the return and inadvertence did not excuse it. Appeal partly allowed. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779732 ITAT (Indore-AT) held that penalty under s.271(1)(c) could not be sustained for denial of an additional depreciation claim under s.32(1)(iia) where an identical claim was allowed in the preceding AY, finding no furnishing of inaccurate particulars. However, penalty was sustained for disallowance of a tax deduction under s.40(a)(ii), since the deduction was clearly disallowable as submitted in the return and inadvertence did not excuse it. Appeal partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779732