https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17547 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The court held that the rubber compound produced by the company was a final product, not an intermediate one, entitling the assessee to investment allowance under both sections 32A and 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The court rejected the Revenue's argument that the product fell under entry 27 of the Eleventh Schedule, emphasizing that it was a new article resulting from a complex manufacturing process. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:11:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17547 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The court held that the rubber compound produced by the company was a final product, not an intermediate one, entitling the assessee to investment allowance under both sections 32A and 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The court rejected the Revenue's argument that the product fell under entry 27 of the Eleventh Schedule, emphasizing that it was a new article resulting from a complex manufacturing process. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17547