CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of S. 80HHB of the IT Act as being violative of Arts. 14 and 19 (1) of the Constitution.

(2.) THE case was listed for hearing along with ITR Nos. 110 to 112 of 1987 wherein the question which arose was whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of S. 80 -0 of the IT Act or not. The case of the Department was that the agreements which had been entered into by the petitioner fell within the purview of S. 80HHB and not S. 80 -0.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments we were informed that despite the contention of the Department that the case of the petitioner fell under S. 80HHB, still benefit under the said provision has not been accorded to the petitioner. The reason for this is that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of S. 80HHB (3). According to the petitioner the conditions prescribed under s. 80HHB (3) were not complied with because till the introduction of S. 80HHB in the IT Act the petitioner was getting benefit of S. 80 -0 in terms of such types of agreements. The petitioner, therefore, did not create reserve accounts as contemplated by S. 80HHB (3) thought foreign exchange was repatriated from abroad.