9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the I.T. Act, 1961, seeks a direction to the Tribunal from this court to refer the following two questions : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to higher development rebate under section 33(1)(B)(i)(b) of the Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the plant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by it in that work, yet it was ineligible for development rebate at the higher rate, as the plant and machinery owned by the assessee had not in fact been used for the manufacture and production of a ship and that the production of a ship was actually done by others and not by the assessee. On appeal by the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the order of the ITO was upheld. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee is engaged in the execution of civil contracts and one of the works undertaken by it is to repair or construct a dockyard. The repair or construction of a shipyard cannot amount in any sense to manufacture or production of a ship. Even assuming that the plant and machinery owned by the assessee has been used only in the construction of the shipyard, the question is whether the assessee is us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articles referred to in the Fifth Schedule in the repair or construction of a shipyard will not enable the assessee to claim higher development rebate. If the assessee's contention that the user of any of the articles referred to in the Fifth Schedule in the assessee's business should be taken to enable it to claim relief under s. 33(1)(B)(i)(b) is accepted, it will be clearly a misreading of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
