https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66768 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that ownership of the goods manufactured is not necessary to claim investment allowance under s. 32A. The Tribunal emphasized that the key factor is the manufacturing or processing of goods using the newly installed machinery. Legal precedents distinguishing between paddy and rice were cited to support the view that milling paddy into rice qualifies as manufacturing. Consequently, the firm engaging in milling activities was deemed eligible for investment allowance, and the department's appeal against the allowance was dismissed. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Mar 2011 11:41:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66768 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that ownership of the goods manufactured is not necessary to claim investment allowance under s. 32A. The Tribunal emphasized that the key factor is the manufacturing or processing of goods using the newly installed machinery. Legal precedents distinguishing between paddy and rice were cited to support the view that milling paddy into rice qualifies as manufacturing. Consequently, the firm engaging in milling activities was deemed eligible for investment allowance, and the department's appeal against the allowance was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66768