https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19848 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject the assessee's claim for development rebate amounting to Rs. 2,20,885. It found that the assessee-company did not meet the conditions under section 16(c) of the Finance Act, 1974, as the machinery was not installed by the assessee-company within the specified period and was instead installed by another entity. The court emphasized that the term "assessee" refers to the entity claiming the rebate and not any entity owning the machinery. Additionally, it concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim that the other entity acted as promoters of the assessee-company. en-us Fri, 10 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:03:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19848 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject the assessee's claim for development rebate amounting to Rs. 2,20,885. It found that the assessee-company did not meet the conditions under section 16(c) of the Finance Act, 1974, as the machinery was not installed by the assessee-company within the specified period and was instead installed by another entity. The court emphasized that the term "assessee" refers to the entity claiming the rebate and not any entity owning the machinery. Additionally, it concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim that the other entity acted as promoters of the assessee-company. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19848