https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39559 The court ruled in favor of the partnership firm operating a hotel, allowing the development rebate claimed under section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the petitioner qualified for the rebate as an assessee running a hotel, not falling under specific clauses but under the residuary clause of section 33(1)(b)(B)(iv). It clarified that the denial of the rebate based on the petitioner not being an Indian company approved by the Central Government was incorrect. The court distinguished between a hotel and a guest-house, determining that the petitioner met the criteria for the rebate claimed. The Commissioner and Income-tax Officer's orders disallowing the rebate were set aside, with directions to modify the assessment order accordingly. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:34:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39559 The court ruled in favor of the partnership firm operating a hotel, allowing the development rebate claimed under section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the petitioner qualified for the rebate as an assessee running a hotel, not falling under specific clauses but under the residuary clause of section 33(1)(b)(B)(iv). It clarified that the denial of the rebate based on the petitioner not being an Indian company approved by the Central Government was incorrect. The court distinguished between a hotel and a guest-house, determining that the petitioner met the criteria for the rebate claimed. The Commissioner and Income-tax Officer's orders disallowing the rebate were set aside, with directions to modify the assessment order accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39559