Commissioner of Income Tax vs Boutique Chic

On this reference application u/s 256 of the IT Act, 1961, notice was issued to the respondent to show-cause as to why the Tribunal should not be directed to refer the following question for our opinion:

"Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the counter sales to foreign buyers/tourists are eligible for exemption u/s 80HHC despite retrospective amendment of the Act by insertion of Explanation (aa) to Section 80HHC(4A) w.e.f. 1st April, 1986?" 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above question sought to be referred by the petitioner, is covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer Vs. Vaibhav Textiles, Counsel further submits that the apex Court has also considered this issue in the case of CIT v. Silver & Arts Palace (Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2000), and their Lordships have also taken the same view as that of this Court.

These facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the Department.

In view of the facts mentioned above, no case is made out to direct the Tribunal to refer the abovementioned question for our opinion. Consequently, the application u/s 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, is rejected.