https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39301 The court held that the respondent-company could not claim a development rebate on the third machine due to insufficient reserve creation. However, the fourth and fifth machines were entitled to a 35% rebate as the reserve created was adequate. The court clarified that the assessee could not claim a lesser rebate rate if the reserve did not comply with statutory requirements. The reference was resolved in favor of the company for the fourth and fifth machines, denying the claim for the third machine. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39301 The court held that the respondent-company could not claim a development rebate on the third machine due to insufficient reserve creation. However, the fourth and fifth machines were entitled to a 35% rebate as the reserve created was adequate. The court clarified that the assessee could not claim a lesser rebate rate if the reserve did not comply with statutory requirements. The reference was resolved in favor of the company for the fourth and fifth machines, denying the claim for the third machine. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39301