https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56328 The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the CIT's order under section 263 for both years under consideration. The Tribunal found the investment allowance and additional depreciation granted by the ITO on machinery purchased for construction activities to be valid, rejecting the CIT's contention that the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The interpretation of the term "installation" was pivotal in determining eligibility for the investment allowance, with movable items being deemed eligible. The broader scope of "industrial undertaking" under section 32A supported the assessee's claim for the investment allowance, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the assessee. en-us Fri, 22 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:00:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56328 The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the CIT's order under section 263 for both years under consideration. The Tribunal found the investment allowance and additional depreciation granted by the ITO on machinery purchased for construction activities to be valid, rejecting the CIT's contention that the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The interpretation of the term "installation" was pivotal in determining eligibility for the investment allowance, with movable items being deemed eligible. The broader scope of "industrial undertaking" under section 32A supported the assessee's claim for the investment allowance, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56328