1978 (2) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of development rebate for machinery installed in a previous year.
2. Entitlement to claim relief under section 80J before the appellate authority without making the claim before the Income-tax Officer.

Analysis:
- The case involved the assessment of a registered firm engaged in the manufacture of insecticides. The firm claimed a development rebate for machinery installed in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim since the machinery was installed in the preceding year. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) reduced the claim based on available profits. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing the need to create the required reserve in the year of machinery installation or when profits were available.

- Regarding the claim under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, the AAC directed the ITO to determine the relief without specifying reasons for rejecting the claim. The Tribunal held that the claim was made before the ITO, allowing the assessee to raise it before the AAC. Despite a Supreme Court decision indicating otherwise, the Tribunal's factual finding led to answering the issue in favor of the assessee.

- The High Court referred to Circular No. 189, stating that no statutory reserve is required in a loss-making year for development rebate. The court relied on this circular to support the assessee's entitlement to the development rebate. On the issue of claiming relief under section 80J before the appellate authority, the court acknowledged the factual finding that the claim was raised before the ITO, leading to a decision in favor of the assessee, despite a Supreme Court precedent suggesting otherwise.

- The judgment clarified the legal obligations regarding the creation of reserves for development rebate and highlighted the significance of factual findings in determining the entitlement to claim relief under specific sections of the Income-tax Act. The court's decision was based on relevant legal provisions, precedents, and circulars issued by the tax authorities, ultimately favoring the assessee in both issues raised in the case.