High Court Frames Question on Section 80HHC Deduction for Foreign Tourist Sales

The High Court admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law regarding the deduction under Section 80HHC for counter sales to foreign tourists. The court referred to a previous judgment, making the issue no longer res integra. The court dismissed the review application regarding 'bogus purchases,' as the substantial question of law was already decided and no error was found in the initial order. The review application was therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Deduction under Section 80HHC for counter sales to foreign tourists
2. Genuine purchases made by the assessee
3. Deletion of addition on account of commission paid for obtaining bogus bills

Analysis:
1. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law regarding the deduction under Section 80HHC for counter sales to foreign tourists. The question was whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction when the assessee failed to prove that the goods underwent custom clearance. The court referred to a previous judgment where a similar question was decided, making the issue no longer res integra.

2. The review application was filed by the appellant regarding 'bogus purchases.' The appellant argued that the substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal were relevant, specifically questioning the genuineness of purchases made by the assessee and the deletion of addition on account of commission paid for obtaining bogus bills. The appellant sought to raise additional substantial questions of law during the hearing but did not file any application for the same at a later stage.

3. The court noted that since the substantial question of law framed earlier was no longer res integra based on the previous judgment, there was no error in the order passed. The court dismissed the review application, concluding that there was no need to entertain it further. The decision was based on the findings regarding the initial substantial question of law framed during the admission of the appeal.

---