2013 (4) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... counter sale?" The dispute relates to the assessment year 1989-90. The background facts may be noticed in brief. The assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of handicraft, marble goods etc. For the assessment year in question, it filed two returns one for the period ending with the death of one of the partners, Shri B.H. Jain on 12.03.1989 and other for the remaining period ending 31st March, 1989. The assessee claimed that it was entitled to deduction under Section 80 HHC in respect of sales of Rs.1,35,86,813/- for the first period and Rs.13,99,864/- for the second period as export out of India withing the meaning of Section 80 HHC. The said claim was examined by the Assessing Officer who treat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in Indian money was not pressed before us. In reply, Sri R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the department submits that there is no material on record to show that the sales made to the foreign tourists against foreign currency, the sold articles has crossed the custom barrier. He submits that in the absence of any such finding, counter sale made to foreign tourists against foreign currency cannot be treated as export sale within the meaning of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has placed reliance upon its earlier order given in the case of CIT v. Ganeshi Lal & So....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHC was disallowed by the Assessing Officer placing reliance on Explanation (aa) to Section 80HHC(4A) of the Act. The assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed, but its appeal to the Tribunal succeeded. Before the Tribunal, material was placed on record to show the nature of the transactions made. The Allahabad High Court specifically considered the effect of introduction of Explanation (aa) to Section 80HHC(4A) of the Act and had taken the view in Ram Babu and Sons v. Union of India [1996] 222 ITR 606 that this Explanation means that, for the purpose of this section, there will be no export out of India if two conditions are cumulatively fulfilled, viz., (a) it is a trans....