Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 had to be allowed first and then withdrawn under section 35(11) when the assessing authority knew at the time of assessment that the machinery had already been sold within the prohibited period.
Analysis: The allowance of development rebate was held to depend upon fulfilment of the conditions in the proviso to section 10(2)(vib). One of those conditions was that the machinery should not be sold to a person other than the Government before the expiry of the prescribed period. Where, at the time of assessment, it was already admitted that the buses had been sold within that period, the assessee was not entitled to the rebate in the first instance. Section 35(11), dealing with rectification of a mistake after an allowance has already been made, was not intended to require the Income-tax Officer to grant a rebate knowingly in breach of the statutory condition and then withdraw it later, especially when limitation might defeat rectification.
Conclusion: The rebate was not required to be first allowed and then withdrawn under section 35(11); the assessee was not entitled to the allowance at the assessment stage. This issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.