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>Court denies assessee relief under section 35B for export charges and development rebate for post-1973 machinery accessories.</h1> <h3>Mafatlal Fine Spinning And Manufacturing Co. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> Mafatlal Fine Spinning And Manufacturing Co. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1994] 206 ITR 578, 117 CTR 246, 74 TAXMANN 129 Issues:1. Entitlement to relief under section 35B of the Income-tax Act on export charges.2. Entitlement to development rebate on accessories to machinery ordered after December 1, 1973.Entitlement to relief under section 35B:The court was asked to determine if the assessee was entitled to relief under section 35B of the Income-tax Act on export license fees, export freight charges, and export insurance charges incurred during the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The court referred to a previous decision and agreed with the counsel for the parties that the question should be answered in favor of the Revenue, based on the precedent. Therefore, the court answered the first question in the negative, favoring the Revenue and against the assessee.Entitlement to development rebate on accessories to machinery:The court examined whether the assessee was entitled to development rebate on accessories to machinery ordered after December 1, 1973. The assessee, a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of textile goods, had purchased plant and accessories during the relevant assessment years. The Income-tax Officer allowed the development rebate on the plant ordered before December 1, 1973, but disallowed it on the accessories ordered after that date. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, leading to this reference. The court considered the provisions of section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, which set the cut-off date for claiming development rebate on machinery ordered before December 1, 1973. As the orders for accessories were placed after this date, the claim for development rebate on them was rightly rejected. The court dismissed the argument that orders for accessories should relate back to the original machinery order, emphasizing that the accessories were ordered separately after the cut-off date. Therefore, the court answered the second question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.In conclusion, the court ruled against the assessee on both issues, denying relief under section 35B and development rebate on accessories ordered after December 1, 1973. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
TaxTMI 