O.CHINNAPPA REDDY,J. - (1.) THE question referred to the High Court under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was as follows : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the requirement of Section 34 (3) (a) regarding creating of development rebate reserve has been satisfied ?"
(2.) THE High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Veerabhadra Iron Foundry v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1968] 69 ITR 425 (AP), the High Court of Allahabad in CIT v. Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 304 (All), the High Court of Bombay in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. N. C. Upadhyaya [1974] 96 ITR 1 (Bom), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sardar Singh Sachdeva [1972] 86 ITR 387 (Punj) and the High Court of Orissa in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Narula Cold Storage & Ice Factory [1976] 104 ITR 148 (Orissa) have consistently taken the view that the Income-tax Act does not contemplate a limit of time for claiming development rebate. The Gujarat High Court has taken a contrary view in Keshavlal Vithaldas v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1976] 105 ITR 601 (Guj ). We are bound to follow the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which, as we have pointed out, is the view of the majority of the High Courts. In view of the earlier decision of this court, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. No costs.;