https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19411 The court held that the development rebate was rightfully withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer as the transfer of the undertaking, including assets, to a subsidiary triggered the provisions of section 34(3)(b) and section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court rejected the argument that transferring the entire undertaking should not be equated with transferring specific assets. It was clarified that the conditions for invoking section 155 differ from those under section 154. The decision favored the Revenue over the assessee, and the reference was disposed of without costs. en-us Tue, 11 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:40:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19411 The court held that the development rebate was rightfully withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer as the transfer of the undertaking, including assets, to a subsidiary triggered the provisions of section 34(3)(b) and section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court rejected the argument that transferring the entire undertaking should not be equated with transferring specific assets. It was clarified that the conditions for invoking section 155 differ from those under section 154. The decision favored the Revenue over the assessee, and the reference was disposed of without costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19411