https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9000 Development rebate was properly disallowed where machinery or plant was transferred within the statutory period after installation, because the proviso deemed the rebate wrongly allowed once continued ownership was not maintained, and rectification under section 35(11) could reflect that position without first granting the claim. The appellate tribunal also had wide power under section 33(4) to direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain and decide a new contention on the taxability of surplus from sale of machinery, since the point fell within the subject-matter of the appeal and further enquiry was permissible on the existing record. Both answers were upheld. en-us Mon, 10 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jan 2026 11:56:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9000 Development rebate was properly disallowed where machinery or plant was transferred within the statutory period after installation, because the proviso deemed the rebate wrongly allowed once continued ownership was not maintained, and rectification under section 35(11) could reflect that position without first granting the claim. The appellate tribunal also had wide power under section 33(4) to direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain and decide a new contention on the taxability of surplus from sale of machinery, since the point fell within the subject-matter of the appeal and further enquiry was permissible on the existing record. Both answers were upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9000