https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778344 ITAT MUMBAI affirmed the AO/CIT(A)'s disallowance of unpaid leave encashment for quantum but set aside the penalty under s.271(1)(c). The tribunal held s.43B(f) applies and the assessee failed to justify the deduction, so disallowance was sustained. However, because the amount was disclosed in accounts, the claim was made while the legal position was sub judice and the error was bona fide (not concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars), the penalty was deleted and the appeal on penalty grounds was allowed. en-us Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2025 10:05:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778344 ITAT MUMBAI affirmed the AO/CIT(A)'s disallowance of unpaid leave encashment for quantum but set aside the penalty under s.271(1)(c). The tribunal held s.43B(f) applies and the assessee failed to justify the deduction, so disallowance was sustained. However, because the amount was disclosed in accounts, the claim was made while the legal position was sub judice and the error was bona fide (not concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars), the penalty was deleted and the appeal on penalty grounds was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778344