https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13570 The court held in favor of the Revenue regarding the deduction under section 80HH before investment allowance under section 32A. However, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the issues of initial depreciation on workers' toilets and cycle stand, as well as pre-operative expenses being considered part of capital employed for section 80J. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on reassessing the extra shift allowance on electric installations. Additionally, the court determined that amended depreciation rules could not be applied retrospectively, ruling against the assessee. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2009 17:51:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13570 The court held in favor of the Revenue regarding the deduction under section 80HH before investment allowance under section 32A. However, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the issues of initial depreciation on workers' toilets and cycle stand, as well as pre-operative expenses being considered part of capital employed for section 80J. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on reassessing the extra shift allowance on electric installations. Additionally, the court determined that amended depreciation rules could not be applied retrospectively, ruling against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13570