TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (10) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to this reference are as follows: The assessment years under consideration are 1968-69 and 1969-70, the relevant accounting years being Samvat Years 2023 and 2024. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business as dealers in diesel oil engines, machinery spare parts, equipment, etc. The firm was carrying on business in the name and style of Messrs. Bharat Petroleums with its head office at Rajkot and branches at Bhavnagar, Ahmedabad, Anand, Mehsana and Bhuj. The partnership was constituted under a deed of partnership dated November 2, 1964. There were six partners of the firm. By a deed dated June 27, 1968, the business of the partnership at Bhuj branch was transferred to a new independent firm styled Bharat Petroleums, Bhuj. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant to the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee claimed development rebate on plant and machineries installed at Mehsana and Bhuj. Similarly, in Samvat Year 2024, that being the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee had claimed development rebate on the plant and machinery installed at Rajkot and Ahmedabad. The ITO declined to grant development rebate claimed by the assessee on its plants and machineries on the ground that the machineries on which the development rebate was claimed had been sold to the newly constituted partnership firms which was within a period of eight years and, therefore, the conditions laid down in s. 34 of the I.T. Act were not fulfilled for claiming development rebate. Appeals by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been referred for our opinion. It may be pointed out that, against the decision of the Tribunal in Laxmi Weaving Factory's case, there was a reference to this High Court, being Income Tax References Nos. 1 and 2 of 1973 and, by our decision dated October 24, 1974, the reference was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and the view taken by the Tribunal in Laxmi Weaving Factory's case was not accepted by this High Court. In that case, it was held that when on the distribution of the assets of a partnership, surplus assets are distributed amongst the partners, there is no utilisation in the voluntary sense, since utilisation means converting to use or turning to account. It was further held that development rebate allowed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in s. 35(11)(ii) between the assessee and the undertaking or the business of the undertaking in respect of which the development rebate has been allowed. The assessee may be the same but he may have different undertakings; for example, the assessee may be running an ice factory and a textile factory and in respect of the ice factory machinery, he may have been allowed development rebate. He may also have been allowed development rebate in respect of the machinery installed for his textile factory. But the business of each of these two undertakings is distinct and separate and, therefore, the development rebate allowed in respect of the ice factory machinery cannot be permitted to be used for the other undertaking of the assessee, namely, ....