https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64453 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the assessees were not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the reopening of assessments under section 147(b) as unauthorized in law, emphasizing that the action taken by the ITO to withdraw the investment allowance was not justified. The Tribunal highlighted conflicting legal opinions and interpretations regarding the eligibility of construction businesses for investment allowance, ultimately canceling the reassessment orders for the two assessees. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:55:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64453 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the assessees were not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the reopening of assessments under section 147(b) as unauthorized in law, emphasizing that the action taken by the ITO to withdraw the investment allowance was not justified. The Tribunal highlighted conflicting legal opinions and interpretations regarding the eligibility of construction businesses for investment allowance, ultimately canceling the reassessment orders for the two assessees. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64453