https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23266 Non-creation of the prescribed development rebate reserve under sections 33 and 34 of the Income-tax Act did not, by itself, authorise withdrawal of development rebate already allowed in the original assessment, where the issue was governed by the binding precedent in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, ITO. The same precedent also meant that unabsorbed development rebate of an earlier assessment year could still be carried forward and set off against profits of a subsequent year, even if the reserve had not been created in the relevant previous year. The Revenue's objection was therefore rejected and the assessee succeeded on both rebate and set-off questions. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:19:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23266 Non-creation of the prescribed development rebate reserve under sections 33 and 34 of the Income-tax Act did not, by itself, authorise withdrawal of development rebate already allowed in the original assessment, where the issue was governed by the binding precedent in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, ITO. The same precedent also meant that unabsorbed development rebate of an earlier assessment year could still be carried forward and set off against profits of a subsequent year, even if the reserve had not been created in the relevant previous year. The Revenue's objection was therefore rejected and the assessee succeeded on both rebate and set-off questions. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23266