https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411889 ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified for denial of assessee's claim under section 80IB. The tribunal found that the assessee's claim was not ex-facie bogus, merely failing to satisfy project size requirements. Following SC precedent in Reliance Petroproducts and Bombay HC decision in Petels Engineers Limited, the tribunal ruled that mere denial of deduction claim under section 80IA/80IB cannot attract penalty unless the claim is apparently bogus. The CIT(A) erred in distinguishing relevant precedents and imposing penalty. en-us Thu, 02 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 May 2025 11:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411889 ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified for denial of assessee's claim under section 80IB. The tribunal found that the assessee's claim was not ex-facie bogus, merely failing to satisfy project size requirements. Following SC precedent in Reliance Petroproducts and Bombay HC decision in Petels Engineers Limited, the tribunal ruled that mere denial of deduction claim under section 80IA/80IB cannot attract penalty unless the claim is apparently bogus. The CIT(A) erred in distinguishing relevant precedents and imposing penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411889