https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36252 The court held that the assessee, a seasonal factory, was not entitled to extra shift allowance without reference to the normal number of working days, set at 300 days, for calculating depreciation allowances. The court emphasized that extra shift allowances should be calculated proportionally based on the actual number of working days, rejecting the argument for equity considerations. Precedents from various High Courts supported the view that the extra shift allowance should be tied to the standard of 300 days. The court ruled in favor of the revenue, denying the assessee's claim for extra shift allowance without adherence to the 300-day norm. en-us Thu, 10 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:39:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36252 The court held that the assessee, a seasonal factory, was not entitled to extra shift allowance without reference to the normal number of working days, set at 300 days, for calculating depreciation allowances. The court emphasized that extra shift allowances should be calculated proportionally based on the actual number of working days, rejecting the argument for equity considerations. Precedents from various High Courts supported the view that the extra shift allowance should be tied to the standard of 300 days. The court ruled in favor of the revenue, denying the assessee's claim for extra shift allowance without adherence to the 300-day norm. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36252