https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206965 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the claim for deduction under Section 80HHF was bona fide and supported by an audit report. The Court emphasized that ownership of goods is not essential for claiming benefits under Section 80HHF, citing relevant Supreme Court precedent. The penalty was deemed unwarranted as there was no evidence of deliberate or knowing furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and the claim was made based on consultant advice. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206965 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the claim for deduction under Section 80HHF was bona fide and supported by an audit report. The Court emphasized that ownership of goods is not essential for claiming benefits under Section 80HHF, citing relevant Supreme Court precedent. The penalty was deemed unwarranted as there was no evidence of deliberate or knowing furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and the claim was made based on consultant advice. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206965