CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2003) 03 RAJ CK 0038

Jewels Emporium and Another vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 21 March 2003 · Citation: (2003) 184 CTR 257 : (2003) 262 ITR 304

HON’BLE JUDGES
Y.R. Meena, J · Khem Chand Sharma, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No''s. 6162-64, 6326, 6620, 6863, 6962 and 6987 of 1991 and 722, 1590 and 1814 of 1992

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 362 words

Y.R. Meena, J.—Since a common question of law is involved in all these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has withdrawn the challenge to the vires of Explanation (aa) added to Sub-section (4B) of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He simply prayed that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Section 80HHC of the Act.

3.

Mr. Kuhad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, relied on the decision of this court in Income Tax Officer Vs. Vaibhav Textiles, and also the decision of their Lordships in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Silver and Arts Palace, (Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2001, decided on December 18, 2002).

4.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kuhad, submits that he does not want to press the challenge to the validity of Clause (aa) of Explanation 2 to Sub-section (4B) of Section 80HHC, but he submits that the issue involved regarding deduction u/s 80HHC is in respect of the profits retained for export business. The assessee is entitled for the benefit of Section 80HHC of the Act of 1961. He has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Vaibhav Textiles, and the decision of their Lordships in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Silver and Arts Palace, (Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2001, decided on December 18, 2002).

5.

As learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the ground challenging the validity of Clause (aa) of Explanation 2 to Sub-section (4B) of Section 80HHC of the Act, the same prayer is rejected.

6.

There is no dispute between the parties that the transactions of counter sales effected by the petitioners involved customs clearance within the meaning of Explanation (aa) to Section 80HHC(4B) of the Act and further that the sales were in convertible foreign exchange.

7.

In the result, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for the benefit u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

8.

The writ petitions are consequently allowed as stated above.