https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758122 ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was imposed after AO made estimated disallowances of expenditure, which CIT(A) later reduced to 10%. ITAT held that where assessee furnished expenditure details in return and disallowance was based on revenue's non-acceptance rather than inaccuracy or concealment, penalty cannot be levied. Following SC precedent in CIT v. UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd, mere non-acceptance of claims by revenue does not attract penalty provisions. en-us Thu, 05 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2024 12:39:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758122 ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was imposed after AO made estimated disallowances of expenditure, which CIT(A) later reduced to 10%. ITAT held that where assessee furnished expenditure details in return and disallowance was based on revenue's non-acceptance rather than inaccuracy or concealment, penalty cannot be levied. Following SC precedent in CIT v. UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd, mere non-acceptance of claims by revenue does not attract penalty provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758122