TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds relief under Income-tax Act despite non-compliance, emphasizes eligibility for benefits.</h1> <h3>Continental Construction Limited Versus Union Of India And Others (and Other Writ Petitions)</h3> The High Court of Delhi ruled in a writ petition challenging the validity of section 80HHB of the Income-tax Act that the petitioners were entitled to ... Exemption In Regard To Profits, Foreign Project Issues involved: Challenge to the validity of section 80HHB of the Income-tax Act under articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution.Summary:The High Court of Delhi, in a writ petition challenging the validity of section 80HHB of the Income-tax Act, addressed the issue alongside Income-tax References Nos. 110 to 112 of 1987. The main question was whether the petitioner was entitled to benefits under section 80-O or not, with the Department contending that the agreements fell under section 80HHB instead.In a separate judgment related to the same case, it was ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of section 80-O. Despite the Department's assertion that the petitioner's case fell under section 80HHB, the benefit under that provision had not been granted due to non-compliance with section 80HHB(3). The petitioner argued that they did not meet the conditions of section 80HHB(3) as they were previously benefiting from section 80-O and had not created reserve accounts as required.The Court found it unfair not to grant the benefit under section 80HHB to the petitioner, considering their eligible projects and genuine reasons for non-compliance with section 80HHB(3) due to prior approvals under section 80-O. Emphasizing that the petitioner was entitled to relief under section 80HHB, the Court urged the Income-tax Department not to focus solely on technicalities but to allow the petitioner time to fulfill the requirements of section 80HHB(3) for the benefit to be granted.No significant challenge was raised regarding the validity of section 80HHB, and the Court affirmed the provision's validity. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
