2002-VIL-28-SC-DT

Equivalent Citation: [2004] 271 ITR 564 (SC)

Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal No 5692 of 2002

Date: 09.09.2002

KARIMJEE (P.) LTD.

Vs

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. J.D. Mistri,Adv. And Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala,Adv.
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,ASG., Mr. Ranbir Chandra,Adv. And Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.

BENCH

Mr. Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri And Mr. S.N. Variava JJ.

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave is granted.

The only reason for declining the relief to the assessee was the failure of compliance of the second proviso to section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In respect of other requirements, there is no dispute that the assessee has complied with the same.

While the matter was being argued, we permitted learned counsel for the assessee to comply with the requirements of the said proviso and it is now represented that an amount equal to the amount of deduction claimed under the sub-section has been debited from the profit and loss account of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1987-88 in respect of which the deduction was to be allowed and that the same was credited to a reserve account to be utilised for the purpose of the business of the assessee. In view of the compliance of the said proviso, the order under challenge is set aside and the assessee is held entitled to deduction under section 80HHC in the accounting year 1986-87.

The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

No costs.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.