https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14171 Poultry farming was treated as not constituting an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacture or production for investment allowance under section 32A, as the issue was already concluded against the assessee in its own earlier case. The claim for extra-shift allowance on cages, equipment and California type sheds, and for double shift allowance on machinery, also failed because the assessee did not prove that the concern had worked for more than one shift. The reference was therefore disposed of in favour of the Revenue, with both questions answered against the assessee. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:08:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14171 Poultry farming was treated as not constituting an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacture or production for investment allowance under section 32A, as the issue was already concluded against the assessee in its own earlier case. The claim for extra-shift allowance on cages, equipment and California type sheds, and for double shift allowance on machinery, also failed because the assessee did not prove that the concern had worked for more than one shift. The reference was therefore disposed of in favour of the Revenue, with both questions answered against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14171