https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274334 The appeal was dismissed as not being the appropriate remedy for the relief sought, and the appellant was directed to pursue appropriate proceedings instead. The Court did not decide on the merits whether raising, loading and transporting gypsum from another company's mines amounted to manufacture or production for investment allowance purposes. It also left undecided whether the Tribunal's order required rectification in light of the subsequent Supreme Court decision. For limitation purposes in any fresh proceedings, the period from 2007 until the date of the order is to be taken into account. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Aug 2018 22:12:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274334 The appeal was dismissed as not being the appropriate remedy for the relief sought, and the appellant was directed to pursue appropriate proceedings instead. The Court did not decide on the merits whether raising, loading and transporting gypsum from another company's mines amounted to manufacture or production for investment allowance purposes. It also left undecided whether the Tribunal's order required rectification in light of the subsequent Supreme Court decision. For limitation purposes in any fresh proceedings, the period from 2007 until the date of the order is to be taken into account. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274334