AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1980-81, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance in respect of its 'deep Sea Fishing Division II Unit' ? ( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessee's claim under Section 35b of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of Export Inspection Agency Fees ? ( 3 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80j of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of 'deep Sea Fishing Division II Unit' ? ( 4 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that 'capital work-in-progress' should be taken into account while computing the 'capital' for the purpose of allowing relief under Section 80j of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"2. The second question is concluded by the decision of this court in the case of this assessee (Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 558 ). 3. Following the said decision, we answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 4. The third question is also concluded by the decision of this court in the case of this assessee (CIT v. Union Carbide India Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 550 ). Following the said decision, we answer the third question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ( 5 ) THE fourth question is concluded by the decision of this court in the case of this assessee (CIT v. Union Carbide India Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 546 ). Following the said decision, we answer the fourth question by saying that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capital work-in-progress had to be taken into account in computing the capital for the purpose of Section 80) of the Act provided such capital had been employed on the first day of the accounting period. Following the said decision, we answer the fourth question by saying that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capital work-in-progress had to be taken into account in computing the capital for the purpose of Section 80) of the Act provided such capital had been employed on the first day of the accounting period. ( 6 ) THE facts relating to the first question are that the assessee derived income from business in various manufacturing and other activities. The assessee claimed investment allowance in respect of its Deep Sea Fishing Division II. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that catching and/or processing of fish cannot be said to produce an article or thing and such activities do not constitute an industrial undertaking. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), following the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1978-79, allowed the claim of the assessee. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal, however, upheld the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), following the decision of this court in the case of this assessee where this court held that the fishing division of the assessee is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 80) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is not in dispute that the assessee-company acquired trawlers with sophisticated equipment like echo-sounders, electronic fish-finding equipment, radars, etc. , for deep sea fishing and set up a "deep Sea Fishing Division" for fishing shrimps in deep seas. The trawlers and equipment were utilised not only for fishing but also for decapitating, peeling and packing shrimps in special containers and freezing them in special quick-freezing chambers installed in the vessels. ( 8 ) INVESTMENT allowance will be allowed in respect of new machinery or plant for the purposes of, inter alia, production of articles or things except certain articles or things specified in the list to the Eleventh Schedule. The question is whether the assessee produces any article in its Deep Sea Fishing Division. ( 9 ) THE operations carried out by the assessee in the Deep Sea Fishing Division, the natural produce, i. e. , the shrimps caught from the deep seas, was converted into frozen fish and fish products. The question is whether the assessee produces any article in its Deep Sea Fishing Division. ( 9 ) THE operations carried out by the assessee in the Deep Sea Fishing Division, the natural produce, i. e. , the shrimps caught from the deep seas, was converted into frozen fish and fish products. The operations consisted of cleaning, peeling, packing and freezing the shrimps without which the same were not marketable and as a result of such processing, a new commercial product came into existence. Moreover, in view of item 30 in Schedule V of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which item covered processed (including frozen) fish and fish products, a person who owned machinery or plant engaged in the manufacture or production of processed fish (including frozen) and fish products was entitled to development rebate under Section 33 at a higher rate. ( 10 ) IN our view, if, for the purpose of a higher development rebate under Section 33, processed fish (including frozen) and fish products are the result of production or manufacture, on analogy, it should be held that, for the purpose of Section 32a, such items should be capable of being produced or manufactured. In our view, the processing of fish in this case amounted to production of an article. Therefore, the Deep Sea Fishing Division of the assessee which is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 80) is also entitled to relief under Section 32a of the Act. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ( 12 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.