https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204039 A mere disallowance of a deduction claim under section 36(1)(vii) did not, by itself, justify penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The record did not show concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the appellate authorities' concurrent view was that penalty could not be sustained simply because the claim was found untenable. On that basis, penalty was held not exigible, and no substantial question of law arose. en-us Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204039 A mere disallowance of a deduction claim under section 36(1)(vii) did not, by itself, justify penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The record did not show concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the appellate authorities' concurrent view was that penalty could not be sustained simply because the claim was found untenable. On that basis, penalty was held not exigible, and no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204039