https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24336 Section 34(3)(a) was interpreted to mean that the development rebate reserve need not be created in full in the year the machinery was installed if profits were insufficient, provided the statutory requirement was met in substance over the relevant assessment years. The Bombay HC note followed Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, ITO, and concluded that the assessee remained entitled to the development rebate deduction despite the absence of full reserve creation in the installation year. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:10:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24336 Section 34(3)(a) was interpreted to mean that the development rebate reserve need not be created in full in the year the machinery was installed if profits were insufficient, provided the statutory requirement was met in substance over the relevant assessment years. The Bombay HC note followed Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, ITO, and concluded that the assessee remained entitled to the development rebate deduction despite the absence of full reserve creation in the installation year. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24336