https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790055 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable where the underlying disallowance of proportionate amortised lease premium was still debatable, because the jurisdictional High Court had already admitted the assessee's appeal on the same quantum question as a substantial question of law. On those facts, the claim could not be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars merely because it was rejected in assessment. The ITAT quashed the penalty, holding that a bona fide claim on a pending and arguable quantum issue does not, by itself, attract concealment penalty. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:22:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790055 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable where the underlying disallowance of proportionate amortised lease premium was still debatable, because the jurisdictional High Court had already admitted the assessee's appeal on the same quantum question as a substantial question of law. On those facts, the claim could not be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars merely because it was rejected in assessment. The ITAT quashed the penalty, holding that a bona fide claim on a pending and arguable quantum issue does not, by itself, attract concealment penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790055