https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58671 A construction company was treated as entitled to investment allowance under section 32A(2)(b)(iii) because building construction was regarded as falling within the statutory expression covering the construction of an article or thing. However, the same activity did not make the assessee an industrial company for concessional tax purposes, as construction of buildings was held not to satisfy the statutory test of manufacture or processing of goods. On revisional jurisdiction, section 263 could not be invoked where the assessment produced no revenue prejudice, and it was also barred where the assessment had merged with the appellate order or where relief had been granted in accordance with section 144B directions. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:30:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58671 A construction company was treated as entitled to investment allowance under section 32A(2)(b)(iii) because building construction was regarded as falling within the statutory expression covering the construction of an article or thing. However, the same activity did not make the assessee an industrial company for concessional tax purposes, as construction of buildings was held not to satisfy the statutory test of manufacture or processing of goods. On revisional jurisdiction, section 263 could not be invoked where the assessment produced no revenue prejudice, and it was also barred where the assessment had merged with the appellate order or where relief had been granted in accordance with section 144B directions. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58671