Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on a de novo assessment, the Income-tax Officer was bound first to allow the development rebate and thereafter withdraw it under section 35(11) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or whether he could the rebate at the threshold when the disqualifying fact had already come to his knowledge.
Analysis: The proviso to section 10(2)(vib) made the availability of development rebate conditional upon the machinery not being sold or otherwise transferred within the specified period. The object of the provision was to deny the rebate where the statutory condition was not satisfied. Although the usual course may be to allow the rebate first and later cancel it under section 35(11) when the disqualifying fact is discovered subsequently, that procedure was unnecessary where, at the time of the fresh assessment, the Income-tax Officer already knew that the buses had been sold within eight years of purchase and the assessee had not fulfilled the condition for claiming the allowance.
Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer was not required to first grant the development rebate and then withdraw it under section 35(11); the rebate could be denied at the stage of de novo assessment. The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the disqualifying fact showing non-fulfilment of a statutory condition for allowance is already known to the assessing authority at the time of assessment, the authority need not first grant the allowance and subsequently withdraw it under the rectification or cancellation provision.