Supreme Court of India
Continental Construction Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)186CTR(SC)88, [2003]264ITR470(SC), (2003)11SCC22, AIRONLINE 2003 SC 34, 1996 (2) SCC 380, 2003 (11) SCC 22, (2004) 186 CUR TAX REP 88, (2003) 264 ITR 470, (2004) 178 TAXATION 395, 1987 SCC (SUPP) 434, 1988 SCC (CRI) 100, (1996) 1 CURLR 594, (1996) 1 JT 680 (SC), (1996) 1 SCR 1046 (SC), (1996) 1 SERVLR 739, (1996) 2 RAJ LW 17, (1996) 2 SCT 362, (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1049, (1996) 33 ATC 219, (1996) 72 FACLR 545, 1996 SCC (L&S) 521, 1996 UJ(SC) 1 596
Bench: Ruma Pal, Ashok Bhan
ORDER
1. The appellants have sought to raise the question of the constitutional validity of Section 80HHB(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The sub-section provides that if any deduction is permitted under the provisions of Section 80HHB(1) from any consideration receivable by the assessee within the description in that sub-section, the same income would not qualify for deduction under any other provision of the Act, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants fairly conceded that if the only object of the section was to deny double deduction on the same income, it could not be said that the sub-section was unconstitutional. However, the submission according to the appellant, the unconstitutionally of the sub-section is as a result of the decision of this court in the appellant's own case in Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT . It is submitted that as a result of this decision, Sub-section (5) would operate not only to deny double deduction but also to deny deduction which is otherwise available to an asses-see under the other provisions of that chapter including Section 80-O.
2. We have perused the judgment of this court and have found that it did not hold that income which was not wholly relatable to Section 80HHB would not be available for deduction under any other provision in respect of such un-relatable income. This court construed the provisions of Section 80HHB and Section 80-O and came to the conclusion that there could be different forms of foreign contracts the consideration whereunder was available for deduction either under Section 80-O or Section 80HHB. The court held that where the relief was clearly referable only to Section 80-O, the assessee would continue to receive deduction available thereunder. But in the case of the appellants, as the consideration received was relatable only to Section 80HHB, the only deduction available was under Section 80HHB. Given this, the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 80HHB(5) must fail.
3. Perhaps this is the reason why the appellant's counsel did not seriously argue the question of constitutionality before the High Court. No submission also appears to have been made before this court in the course of the earlier proceedings that the interpretation of Sections 80-O and 80HHB given by the court would have the result of rendering Section 80HHB(5) unconstitutional.
4. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.