https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27058 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues. It held that the conversion of a Hindu undivided family business into a partnership business did not constitute a transfer justifying the withdrawal of development rebate. Additionally, the distribution of reserve amount to female family members during partition did not violate section 34(3)(a) warranting rebate withdrawal. The court emphasized the lack of transfer in the business conversion and the absence of evidence supporting the alleged violation, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's claims and directing them to pay the assessee's costs. en-us Tue, 07 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:15:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27058 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues. It held that the conversion of a Hindu undivided family business into a partnership business did not constitute a transfer justifying the withdrawal of development rebate. Additionally, the distribution of reserve amount to female family members during partition did not violate section 34(3)(a) warranting rebate withdrawal. The court emphasized the lack of transfer in the business conversion and the absence of evidence supporting the alleged violation, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's claims and directing them to pay the assessee's costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27058