Investment and extra shift allowance remain available despite use by a lessee or another concern when statutory conditions are met.

Investment allowance could not be denied merely because the assessee itself did not use the machinery for its own manufacturing, where the statutory conditions for the allowance were otherwise satisfied, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Extra shift allowance also could not be refused on the ground that the machinery was used in double shift by a lessee or in one of the assessee's own concerns, because entitlement remained available when admissible under the Act, and this issue too was decided in favour of the assessee. Both questions were answered against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether investment allowance could be denied merely because the machinery was not used by the assessee for manufacturing of its own. (ii) Whether extra shift allowance could be denied on the basis that the machinery was used in double shift by a lessee or in one of the assessee's own concerns.

Issue (i): Whether investment allowance could be denied merely because the machinery was not used by the assessee for manufacturing of its own.

Analysis: The question was covered by the settled law that the availability of investment allowance does not depend on the assessee itself undertaking manufacturing with the machinery, where the statutory conditions for the allowance are otherwise satisfied.

Conclusion: The answer was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether extra shift allowance could be denied on the basis that the machinery was used in double shift by a lessee or in one of the assessee's own concerns.

Analysis: The question was covered by the same binding precedent, under which the entitlement to extra shift allowance is not defeated by the circumstance that the machinery was used by a lessee or in another concern, so long as the allowance is otherwise admissible under the Act.

Conclusion: The answer was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both questions were answered against the Revenue, and the appeal failed.

---