9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to higher development rebate at 20 per cent. in respect of the machinery installed by it as per section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee should be treated as an 'industrial company' within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1974, and that the rate of tax to be adopted should be 55 percent. and not 65 per cent. as adopted by the Income-tax Officer ? " The business of the assessee consists of processing of frog legs, lobsters, shrimps and prawns. The assessee has claimed relief under section 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the use of the cold storage plant. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80J of the Act. Before us, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that the activities of the assessee do not involve manufacturing activities and, therefore, the provisions of section 80J cannot be made applicable to the assessee. It was further submitted that mere using of the cold storage plant alone would not amount to manufacturing any article. Therefore, according to learned standing counsel, mere processing of lobsters, shrimps and prawns would not amount to manufacturing. There was no representation on behalf of the assessee. This issue is directly covered by a decision of the Calcutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of prawns is entitled to special deduction under section 80HH ". Considering the facts arising on this aspect in the light of the judicial pronouncement cited supra, we hold that the assessee's activities in processing shrimps, frog legs, prawns and lobsters would amount to manufacturing activities as contemplated under section 80J(ii) of the Act. In that view of the matter, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80J(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, the facts leading to question No. 2 are that the Income-tax Officer restricted the development rebate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of the business of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles specified in the list in the Fifth Schedule to the Act. Item 30 of Schedule V relates to the process of fish and fish products. The business of the assessee admittedly consists of processing of lobsters, frog legs, shrimps and prawns. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to development rebate at 25 per cent. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal granting development rebate at 25 per cent. is in order. Accordingly, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and against the Department. The facts leading to question No. 3 are that the assessee claimed that it is an industrial company entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
