9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fees, export freight charges and export insurance charges incurred by it during the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to development rebate on accessories to machinery the orders for which were placed after December 1, 1973 ?" So far as the first question is concerned, counsel for the parties are agreed that following the ratio of the decision of this court in M. H. Daryani v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 731, it may be answered in favour of the Revenue. In view of the above statement and following the ratio of the above decision, we answer the first question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... development rebate only on that machinery for which orders had been placed before December 1, 1973. This section, so far as relevant, reads : "16. Continuance of development rebate in certain cases.-The notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) No. S. O. 2167, dated the 28th day of May, 1971, issued under sub-section (5) of section 33 of the Income-tax Act shall not apply in respect of -. . . . (c) any machinery or plant (not being machinery or plant referred to in clause (b)) installed by any assessee after the 31st day of May, 1974, but before the 1st day of June, 1975, if the assessee furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer that before the 1st da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers for purchase of accessories of such plant and machinery even subsequent to the said date should relate back to the order for the purchase of the plant and machinery itself. We find it extremely difficult to accept this contention. The admitted position is that the original order placed by the assessee for purchase of plant and machinery before December 1, 1973, did not include the accessories in question for which a separate order was placed by the assessee after December 1, 1973, and in that view of the matter, it is not covered by section 16(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1974. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to development rebate on the accessories for which the orders were placed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
