Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 417 (RAJ)

Jewels Emporium v. Union of India

2003-03-21

KHEM CHAND SHARMA, Y.R.MEENA

body2003
Judgment 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 At theoutset, learned counsel for the petitioners has withdrawn the challenge to the vires of Explanation (aa) added to Sub-section (4B) of Section 8OHHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He simply prayed that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Section 8OHHC of the Act. 3. Mr. Kuhad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, relied on the decision of this court in ITO vs. Vaibhav Textiles [2002] 258 ITR 346 and also the decision of their Lordships in the case of CIT vs. Silver and Arts Palace [2003] 259 ITR 684 (SC) (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 8OHHC, but he submits that the issue involved regarding deduction under Section 8OHHC is in respect of the profits retained for export business. The assessee is entitled for the benefit of Section 8OHHC of the Act of 1961. He has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of ITO vs. Vaibhav Textiles [2002] 258 ITR 346 and the decision of their Lordships in the case of CIT vs. Silver and Arts Palace [2003] 259 ITR 684 (SC) (Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2001, decided on December 18, 2002). 5. Aslearned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the ground challenging the validity of Clause (aa) of Explanation 2 to Sub-section (4B) of Section 8OHHC 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 8OHHC(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 under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. The writ petitions are consequently allowed as stated above.