9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (5) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is an authorised dealer of Hindustan Motors and is engaged in the building of Bus bodies and chassis either purchased by itself or supplied by the customer. The assessee claimed development rebate under s. 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(b) which was denied by the ITO. On appeal, the AAC allowed the claim by referring to item (10) of the Fifth Schedule of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The Revenue has appealed and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly build them up into Buses but sold them away as chassis. It was submitted that it was only the assessee who made them into Buses by building the bodies whether for supplying as a Bus or whether on a chasis supplied by the customer and therefore, in common parlance it must be understood that it was the assessee who produced the Bus since the chassis in common parlance cannot be understood to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e understood, in the popularity and commercial sense with reference of the context in which they occur (see the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kores (India) Ltd. (1977) 9 SCC Tax 40). A reference to the Schedule itself shows that it contains the list of major industries. Read with s. 33, the intention of the legislature which we gather is that an assessee who is engaged in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it is the assessee who has manufactured the Bus. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the claim of the assessee could be allowed with reference to item No. (10) of the Fifth Schedule. However, the alternative plea of the assessee with reference to item (20) appears to be sound. Automobile ancillaries are also not defined and in common parlance must be understood to include all component parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
