https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372059 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable where the assessee claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) on a plausible interpretation of the law, after seeking clarification and legal advice, and with full disclosure of material facts in the return. The later disallowance of the deduction did not, by itself, establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. For Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), the explanation must be shown to lack bona fides or adequate disclosure; on these facts, the assessee's conduct met both requirements, so penalty could not be imposed merely because the quantum claim failed. en-us Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Dec 2018 06:39:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372059 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable where the assessee claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) on a plausible interpretation of the law, after seeking clarification and legal advice, and with full disclosure of material facts in the return. The later disallowance of the deduction did not, by itself, establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. For Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), the explanation must be shown to lack bona fides or adequate disclosure; on these facts, the assessee's conduct met both requirements, so penalty could not be imposed merely because the quantum claim failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372059