When the disputed issue is decided by the Apex Court, the proceeding initiated u/s 263, against the deduction wrongly claimed by the assessee and allowed by the AO, cannot be said to be an invalid stating that there were two opinions available

Jai Mica Supply Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkutta High Court)

We do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Khaitan that there were conflicting views on this point when the notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued. At one  point of time, when the matter was before the Tribunal, the decision of Two-Judge-Bench in the case of Stenocraft Enterprises (Supra), created a doubt as to the applicability of Section 80HHC of the Act, but after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gem Granites (Supra), there is no scope of any confusion and we therefore, find that the  Commissioner of Income- tax did not commit any illegality in invoking of Section 263 of the Act at a point of time when there was no confusion in the field and the Tribunal  also rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

Assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC for the goods and merchandise, namely, minerals or ores as the amendment brought to allow deduction in respect export of goods and merchandise which are `minerals and ores’ is prospective and not retrospective and is applicable w.e.f. AY 1991-92.

Download Full Text of the Judgment

Related posts:

1. Scrapping the Apex Court decision on Scrap
2. Supreme Court appoints Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by ex-Apex Court judge to probe black money issue
3. Non-Advocates cannot give legal opinions: Bombay High Court
4. Rajasthan HC ruling on giving arrears of rent under section 25 B of the Income Tax Act irked apex court
5. Taxman gears up to move apex court on its tax claims of around Rs 2,000 crore