1980 (3) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the development rebate was erroneously allowed and it was also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He, therefore, gave an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee contended that the ITO was justified in allowing the development rebate as the plant and machinery were installed by the assessee for the purposes of manufacturing and producing jute ropes and jute twines. The Commissioner rejected the argument with a finding that the plant and machinery could not be regarded as installed for the purposes of business of manufacture or production of jute ropes and jute twines as the main business of the assessee was production of ropes from materials other than jute or cotton. He also held that the plant and machine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t interpretation of section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with items 32 and 33 of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act, the assesses would be entitled to higher rate of development rebate on the plant and machinery installed by it during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under reference ? " The relevant provisions of s. 33 of the I.T. Act, 1961, read thus : " 33. (1)(a) In respect of a new ship or new machinery or plant (other than office appliances or road transport vehicles) which is owned by the assessee and is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by him, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section and of section 34, be allowed a deduction, in res....