1997 (4) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to as "the Act"), is directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated February 26, 1980 (see [1980] 126 ITR 382), in Income-tax Reference No. 24 of 1978 which relates to the assessment year 1969-70. The assessee is a registered firm dealing in sea foods having its head office at Cochin and a branch at Bombay. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70, the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") held that the assessee was entitled to development rebate at the rate of 35 per cent. The Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that in respect of the freezing and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... making the assessment for the year concerned, the Income-tax Officer had proceeded on the explicit basis that despite the fact that the freezing plant, etc., in the Bombay branch of the assessee had been let out to a sister concern, the said plant and machinery were none the less being used by the assessee for its business and treated the income derived by the assessee by such letting out as a bus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o become final. The High Court has also mentioned that in respect of the assessment year 1969-70, the Department had filed an appeal before the Tribunal but no ground was taken at all in the said appeal that the development rebate ought not to have been granted to the assessee. The High Court held that, since the grant of development rebate to the assessee as per the orders passed by the Income-ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... section 33(1)(a) are not satisfied. Apart from the reasons aforementioned given by the High Court for rejecting this contention we are also of the view that the question that was referred by the Tribunal does not comprehend within its scope, the said contention sought to be raised by learned counsel. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. But in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X