1991 (2) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reference relating to his assessment for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1970-71. The assessee, it is common ground, has been purchasing new machinery year after year on which he claimed and was allowed development rebate as under : Assessment year Amount allowed Rs. 1964-65 23,717 1965-66 41,683 1966-67 5,770 1967-68 28,066 1968-69 49,488 1969-70 2,265 1970-71 2,835 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... referred to this court the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the withdrawal under section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the development rebate earlier allowed in respect of the plant and machinery employed in the proprietary co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts to transfer of the assets by the individual to the firm. However, according to her, this judgment is not applicable in this case as the said judgment was delivered in the context of "transfer" of a capital asset for the purpose of capital gains and not for the purpose of section 34(3)(b). She submitted that the Madras High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd. (No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lause, i.e., section 2(47), does not or will not apply while considering the word "transfer" as used in section 34(3)(b). Moreover, we find that a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of A. Abdul Rahim, Travancore Confectionery Works v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 595, and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. M. A. J. Vasanaik [1979] 116 ITR 110, considered the purport and scope ....