TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the assessee, Ludhiana Steel Rolling Mills, is entitled to development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), namely, whether it should be 15% or 25% ? The business of the assessee-firm consists of rerolling of iron scrap, manufacture of mild, steel rounds, square bars and also the manufacture and sale of machinery like lath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of iron and steel within the meaning of item No. (1) of the list in the Fifth Schedule to the Act and was thus entitled to development rebate at the rate of 25%. This is what has now led to the following question being referred for them opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it ceases to be a raw material and enters into the category of finished products and it cannot then come within this item. Wire rods were thus held to be beyond the scope of item No. ( 1 ) of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. A Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala in CIT v. West India Steel Co. Ltd. [1977] 108 ITR 601, has, however, taken a somewhat different view. The case there concerned an as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the finished article can be said to be something basically different from iron and steel." Applying this test, it was held that articles manufactured by the assessee entitled it to the higher development rebate under section 33(1) of the Act. A similar view taken by the High Court of Kerala earlier in CIT v. Mittal Steel Re-rolling and Allied Industries (P.) Ltd. [1977] 108 ITR 207 was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
