https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11843 A later Board circular could not be applied to grant section 80HHC relief for assessment year 1987-88, because the issue was already covered against the assessee by binding Supreme Court authority and the Court's own earlier decision; that question was answered against the assessee. For fork lifts, the claim to investment allowance succeeded because there was no recorded finding that higher depreciation had been allowed on the basis of their being road transport vehicles, and the Tribunal's finding that the machinery was used in manufacturing and qualified for investment allowance was based on evidence and required no interference. en-us Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11843 A later Board circular could not be applied to grant section 80HHC relief for assessment year 1987-88, because the issue was already covered against the assessee by binding Supreme Court authority and the Court's own earlier decision; that question was answered against the assessee. For fork lifts, the claim to investment allowance succeeded because there was no recorded finding that higher depreciation had been allowed on the basis of their being road transport vehicles, and the Tribunal's finding that the machinery was used in manufacturing and qualified for investment allowance was based on evidence and required no interference. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11843