https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61597 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, ruling against the assessee in both issues. It held that full depreciation on additional investments in building and machinery was not justified due to discrepancies in evidence, including lack of proof of new machinery usage. Additionally, the deduction under section 80-IB was disallowed as the income could not be linked directly to industrial activity, and statutory requirements were not met regarding capital investment and manufacturing activity. The Tribunal stressed the necessity of concrete evidence and compliance with tax provisions for claiming such benefits. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61597 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, ruling against the assessee in both issues. It held that full depreciation on additional investments in building and machinery was not justified due to discrepancies in evidence, including lack of proof of new machinery usage. Additionally, the deduction under section 80-IB was disallowed as the income could not be linked directly to industrial activity, and statutory requirements were not met regarding capital investment and manufacturing activity. The Tribunal stressed the necessity of concrete evidence and compliance with tax provisions for claiming such benefits. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61597