| Case ID |
0089e9db-d85d-4f31-8c1c-7a69e4a17d2d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The High Court dismissed the writ application filed by Drastic Forging P. Ltd. The court ruled that the Commissioner had no authority to deal with the matter regarding the extension of time for the realization of export sales proceeds after the amendment of section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which came into effect on June 1, 1999. The petitioner had suppressed material facts, particularly the pendency of an appeal before the Tribunal, which invalidated their right to relief. The court emphasized that the Reserve Bank of India or another specified authority was the only entity authorized to handle such matters post-amendment, and the petitioner could not seek relief from the High Court while the matter was still under consideration by the Tribunal. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which pertains to deductions for exporters. The petitioner, Drastic Forging P. Ltd., sought an extension for the realization of export sales proceeds, which was not granted by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that the officer lacked jurisdiction under the relevant section and appealed to the Commissioner. However, due to an amendment effective June 1, 1999, the authority to grant such extensions was transferred to the Reserve Bank of India. The High Court found that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that the matter was pending before the Tribunal, which led to the dismissal of the writ application. This case emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction and procedural compliance in tax law, particularly in the context of amendments and the roles of various authorities. Relevant keywords: Income Tax, Export Deductions, Section 80HHC, Jurisdiction, High Court Rulings. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Hirak Mitra,
Som
|
| Petitioners |
Drastic Forging P. Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 2722 = (2002) 257 ITR 323
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. John Peter [2000] 243 ITR 561 (Mad.),
Coca-Cola Export Corpn. v. S.C. Tiwari, ITO [1986] 158 ITR 439/ 24 Taxman 641(Delhi),
Purshottam Thakersey v. K.N. Anantarama Ayyer, CWT [1985] 154 ITR 395/[1984] 18 Taxman 443 (Bom.),
Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
80HHC
|