https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5452 The court reaffirmed that the term "construction" in Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be read in conjunction with "manufacture or production of any article or thing." It emphasized that "construction" cannot be interpreted independently. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding its previous interpretation and stating that the Law Ministry's opinion and Minister of State for Finance's reply are not binding. The court also clarified that a CBDT circular from 1986 does not significantly impact the interpretation of Section 32A. The judgment in CIT v. Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. was found consistent with the court's decision. en-us Mon, 01 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5452 The court reaffirmed that the term "construction" in Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be read in conjunction with "manufacture or production of any article or thing." It emphasized that "construction" cannot be interpreted independently. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding its previous interpretation and stating that the Law Ministry's opinion and Minister of State for Finance's reply are not binding. The court also clarified that a CBDT circular from 1986 does not significantly impact the interpretation of Section 32A. The judgment in CIT v. Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. was found consistent with the court's decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5452