https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752100 ITAT Chennai held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified where assessee claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) based on DSIR guidelines and CA certification, but DSIR later restricted the claim after return filing. Following Balaji Distilleries Ltd. and SC precedents in Price Waterhouse Coopers and Reliance Petroproducts, the tribunal ruled that making an incorrect claim without available DSIR approval at filing time does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty deleted and assessee's appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 May 2024 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752100 ITAT Chennai held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified where assessee claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) based on DSIR guidelines and CA certification, but DSIR later restricted the claim after return filing. Following Balaji Distilleries Ltd. and SC precedents in Price Waterhouse Coopers and Reliance Petroproducts, the tribunal ruled that making an incorrect claim without available DSIR approval at filing time does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty deleted and assessee's appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752100