S.RAMACHANDRA.IYER, SRINIVASAN
Commissioner of Income-tax Madras – Appellant
Versus
P. Veeraswami Nainar Bus owner and the mill owner, Ginjee by legal representatives Daivanayayammal – Respondent
S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C. J. :- This reference, made at the instance of the revenue, raises the following questions :
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to the allowance of development rebate under the provisions of S. 10(2)(vi-b) of the Income-tax Act in respect of a new bus and a new lorry installed after 31-12-1957, even though the necessary reserve, in accordance with S. 10(2)(vi-b), as it stood at the relevant time, had not been made?
2. Whether the direction given to the Income-tax Officer at this stage that the said allowance may be granted to the assessee, on production of the books before the Income-tax Officer, is justified ?
The facts giving rise to this reference are these. The assessee (a Hindu undivided family) had business in cement and fertilisers. The family had also a business in bus transport and lorry service. Besides, it owned two rice mills. For the assessment year 1959-60, the relevant accounting period being the previous financial year, the assessee submitted a return showing a loss of Rs. 20441 in respect of the business. That loss was ascertained, after deducting, inter alia, a development rebate at 25 per cent on a new lorry and a new bus which were
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.