The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Burlingtons Of Bombay
High Court
10 Aug 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Burlingtons Of Bombay
Date of order
10 Aug 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Burlingtons Of Bombay, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICGTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 315 of 1995
The Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
... Applicant.
M/s. Burlingtons of Bombay
..... Respondent
Mr. Parag Vyas i/b. H. D. Rathod for Applicant. Mr. S. J. Mehta for Respondent
CORAM: V. C. DAGAAND A. S. AGUIAR JJ.
Date: 10[th] August, 2005.
P. C. :
1. By this reference, arising out of I.T.A. No. 5611 /B/87, forAssessment Year 1984-85, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Actthe Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinion at theinstance of the Revenue:
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal isjustified in holding that the assessee is entitled to getdeduction under section 80 HHC even in respect of thesales affected to foreigner across the counter in India onreceipt of foreign exchange currency, without taking intoconsideration the fact that the amendment by Finance(No.2) Act, 1991, was given retrospective effect from1.4.1986 only, in view of the difference terminology used
in the section for the period from 1.4.1983 to 1.4.1986?
2. Both counsel appearing for the rival parties agree that the abovequestions have been covered by decision of the Apex Court in thecase of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Silver Arts Palace,reported in [2003] 259 ITR page 684, In this view of the matterboth the questions referred to us is answered in the affirmative i.e. infavour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Referenceaccordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
(V. C. DAGA J. )
-x-
(A. S. AGUIAR J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.