https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16094 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal erred in denying the investment allowance on the increased cost due to exchange rate fluctuation. It held that the increased liability should be added to the actual cost for all allowances, including investment allowance, unless explicitly excluded by law. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd. did not support excluding investment allowance from section 43A, as investment allowance and development rebate are distinct provisions. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. en-us Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:37:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16094 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal erred in denying the investment allowance on the increased cost due to exchange rate fluctuation. It held that the increased liability should be added to the actual cost for all allowances, including investment allowance, unless explicitly excluded by law. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd. did not support excluding investment allowance from section 43A, as investment allowance and development rebate are distinct provisions. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16094