9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is court, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to item No. 32 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Schedule. Ultimately, the matter came before the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, following its earlier order rendered in the assessee's own case for the subsequent assessment year 1975-76, held that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture and production of textiles and therefore, was entitled to development rebate. The Appellate Tribunal also found that the facts in the present assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitial depreciation and higher development rebate. Mr. Janarthana Raja, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of textiles by converting unbleached cloth or yarn into dyed cloth or dyed yarn and, therefore, the process employed by the assessee would amount to manufacture of dyed cloth or dyed yarn. We have carefully considered the rival contentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1984 (CIT v. Rajalakshmi Textiles Processors Ltd. (No. 1) [19991 235 ITR 718), we have to hold that the assessee is not entitled to claim development rebate at the enhanced rate of 25 per cent. on the machinery installed in factory. Therefore, the view of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee is entitled to higher development rebate at the enhanced rate of 25 per cent. in respect of certain m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
