https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11907 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all questions raised in the case, including allowing the deduction under Section 32AB despite the absence of prescribed particulars in the audit report, qualifying internal capitalization for the deduction under Section 32AB, permitting deduction for amounts capitalized from work-in-progress of earlier years, granting deduction under Section 80-I for manufacturing units pre-dating April 1, 1988, applying the Eleventh Schedule amendment to both old and new units, and recognizing service charges, maintenance revenue, and lease rent as income derived from industrial undertaking under Section 80-I. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. en-us Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11907 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all questions raised in the case, including allowing the deduction under Section 32AB despite the absence of prescribed particulars in the audit report, qualifying internal capitalization for the deduction under Section 32AB, permitting deduction for amounts capitalized from work-in-progress of earlier years, granting deduction under Section 80-I for manufacturing units pre-dating April 1, 1988, applying the Eleventh Schedule amendment to both old and new units, and recognizing service charges, maintenance revenue, and lease rent as income derived from industrial undertaking under Section 80-I. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11907