https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16193 The court ruled in favor of the closely held company, allowing their claim for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. The court held that the company's job work activities, specifically in producing masticated rubber, qualified as manufacturing a distinct product commercially. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the nature of the product created by the company determined eligibility for the investment allowance. The court referenced previous cases to support its decision, ultimately favoring the assessee and highlighting the significance of the product's nature in determining eligibility for investment allowance. en-us Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:44:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16193 The court ruled in favor of the closely held company, allowing their claim for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. The court held that the company's job work activities, specifically in producing masticated rubber, qualified as manufacturing a distinct product commercially. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the nature of the product created by the company determined eligibility for the investment allowance. The court referenced previous cases to support its decision, ultimately favoring the assessee and highlighting the significance of the product's nature in determining eligibility for investment allowance. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16193