https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281280 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the assessee claimed deduction under section 35(2AB) on the basis of letters from the Ministry of Science and Technology and later withdrew the claim during scrutiny assessment. The disallowance in quantum proceedings did not, by itself, establish concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. As there was no finding that the scientific research and development expenditure was not genuine, the claim was treated as made on a bona fide belief. In these circumstances, the withdrawal of the deduction claim did not convert it into concealment, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jun 2019 19:33:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281280 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the assessee claimed deduction under section 35(2AB) on the basis of letters from the Ministry of Science and Technology and later withdrew the claim during scrutiny assessment. The disallowance in quantum proceedings did not, by itself, establish concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. As there was no finding that the scientific research and development expenditure was not genuine, the claim was treated as made on a bona fide belief. In these circumstances, the withdrawal of the deduction claim did not convert it into concealment, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281280