https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29636 The court held that the carried forward development rebate should be given the least priority for set-off, following current year's depreciation, carried forward business losses, unabsorbed depreciation, and current year's development rebate. The interpretation of section 2(45) in relation to sections 5, 33, and 72 emphasized the precedence of setting off carried forward business losses before depreciation allowances. The court ruled in favor of the revenue, directing the assessee to pay costs and granting a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court due to the substantial legal questions involved. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:28:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29636 The court held that the carried forward development rebate should be given the least priority for set-off, following current year's depreciation, carried forward business losses, unabsorbed depreciation, and current year's development rebate. The interpretation of section 2(45) in relation to sections 5, 33, and 72 emphasized the precedence of setting off carried forward business losses before depreciation allowances. The court ruled in favor of the revenue, directing the assessee to pay costs and granting a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court due to the substantial legal questions involved. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29636