https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15992 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the assessee was only eligible for a 40% depreciation allowance on trucks used for hire purposes, not for the assessee's own business operations. The court also upheld the denial of investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that certain constructions, such as dams and bridges, are not eligible for investment allowance. The court highlighted the need for independent examination in cases involving statutory interpretation and concluded that the assessee's claim for investment allowance was not justified based on the specific conditions outlined in the Act. en-us Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15992 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the assessee was only eligible for a 40% depreciation allowance on trucks used for hire purposes, not for the assessee's own business operations. The court also upheld the denial of investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that certain constructions, such as dams and bridges, are not eligible for investment allowance. The court highlighted the need for independent examination in cases involving statutory interpretation and concluded that the assessee's claim for investment allowance was not justified based on the specific conditions outlined in the Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15992