Held, that the disallowances made under section 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(iii) are statutory disallowances which are required to be made for failure to deduct tax at source under the provisions of the Act. It was not the case of the Department that the expenses, which were disallowed due to statutory provisions, were either bogus or non-genuine, i. e., but for the statutory provisions, the expenses were allowable under the Act. The assessee had disclosed the details relating to the relevant expenses. Hence, the question of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with regard to these disallowances did not arise. Merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had claimed expenditure which was otherwise allowable, but for the statutory provisions of section 40(a)(i) and (iii). Hence, such statutory disallowance would not fall under the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable on such kind of disallowances. Followed

CIT v. Reliance petroproducts P. Ltd ( 2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) Tanushree basu v. ACIT (I. T. A. No. 2922/Mum/2012, dt  25 -5 2013. As regards disallowance  of expenses on Corporate social responsibility expenses, claim being bonafide levy of penalty is held to be not justified . ( AY.2015-16)