https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13948 Investment allowance was held admissible only for machinery actually installed in the restaurant, and not for the building itself; the claim succeeded to that limited extent. The restaurant building was held not to be plant for depreciation or extra-shift allowance purposes, following Supreme Court authority, so the related depreciation and extra-shift allowance claims failed. Relief was therefore confined to the qualifying machinery, while treatment of the building as plant was rejected. en-us Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:24:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13948 Investment allowance was held admissible only for machinery actually installed in the restaurant, and not for the building itself; the claim succeeded to that limited extent. The restaurant building was held not to be plant for depreciation or extra-shift allowance purposes, following Supreme Court authority, so the related depreciation and extra-shift allowance claims failed. Relief was therefore confined to the qualifying machinery, while treatment of the building as plant was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13948