https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5433 SC held that construction of a dam cannot be characterised as "manufacture" or "production" of an "article" under s. 80HH; such expressions are associated with movable goods, not immovable constructions like dams, bridges, roads, canals or buildings. Consequently, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under s. 80HH. Interpreting s. 32A(2)(b)(iii), SC further held that the words "construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing" are confined to movable articles or things (including ships) and do not extend to civil construction works such as dams or canals; investment allowance was therefore not available for machinery used in such works. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, including against the HC decision granting s. 32A benefit for machinery employed in digging borewells. en-us Tue, 07 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 09:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5433 SC held that construction of a dam cannot be characterised as "manufacture" or "production" of an "article" under s. 80HH; such expressions are associated with movable goods, not immovable constructions like dams, bridges, roads, canals or buildings. Consequently, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under s. 80HH. Interpreting s. 32A(2)(b)(iii), SC further held that the words "construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing" are confined to movable articles or things (including ships) and do not extend to civil construction works such as dams or canals; investment allowance was therefore not available for machinery used in such works. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, including against the HC decision granting s. 32A benefit for machinery employed in digging borewells. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5433