https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265314 The case involved a dispute over the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee for embroidery work on sarees. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, arguing that embroidery did not amount to manufacturing. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that embroidery transformed the fabric into a distinct product with its own market value, qualifying as manufacturing. The ITAT upheld the allowance of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the embroidery work met the criteria for manufacturing activities. en-us Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265314 The case involved a dispute over the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee for embroidery work on sarees. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, arguing that embroidery did not amount to manufacturing. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that embroidery transformed the fabric into a distinct product with its own market value, qualifying as manufacturing. The ITAT upheld the allowance of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the embroidery work met the criteria for manufacturing activities. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265314