https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37794 Rectification withdrawing earlier income-tax relief was held unsustainable where the supposed error on reconstruction was not apparent from the record, though the appellate challenge to that rectification was maintainable. Relief under section 84(2) remained available because the disqualification for splitting up or reconstruction applies only where the undertaking itself is formed in that manner, not merely where later events resemble reconstruction. Development rebate could not be withdrawn under section 155(5) absent a transfer by the assessee or misuse of the reserve outside the business. However, rebate failed under section 34(3)(a) because the reserve had not been utilised by the assessee as the statute expressly required. en-us Wed, 02 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:43:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37794 Rectification withdrawing earlier income-tax relief was held unsustainable where the supposed error on reconstruction was not apparent from the record, though the appellate challenge to that rectification was maintainable. Relief under section 84(2) remained available because the disqualification for splitting up or reconstruction applies only where the undertaking itself is formed in that manner, not merely where later events resemble reconstruction. Development rebate could not be withdrawn under section 155(5) absent a transfer by the assessee or misuse of the reserve outside the business. However, rebate failed under section 34(3)(a) because the reserve had not been utilised by the assessee as the statute expressly required. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37794