https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11541 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. It concluded that the investment allowance could not be withdrawn under section 155(4A) of the Income-tax Act as the plant and machinery were not transferred, only the steel derived from the scrapped machinery was sold. The court emphasized the clear language of the Act and rejected the Revenue's broad interpretation of "otherwise transferred." The decision aligned with the principles established in Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 647. en-us Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11541 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. It concluded that the investment allowance could not be withdrawn under section 155(4A) of the Income-tax Act as the plant and machinery were not transferred, only the steel derived from the scrapped machinery was sold. The court emphasized the clear language of the Act and rejected the Revenue's broad interpretation of "otherwise transferred." The decision aligned with the principles established in Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 647. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11541