https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59290 Investment allowance under section 32A required item-wise examination of the plant and machinery claimed, because the earlier rejection rested on a general view that hotel business was not an industrial undertaking. The proper approach was to test each asset separately on its own facts, and the matter was restored for fresh decision without any final allowance at that stage. Hotel receipts tax collected through bills in the course of business was treated as a trading receipt; however, under mercantile accounting, the corresponding tax liability had accrued in the year despite the statutory stay, so deduction could not be denied merely because payment was deferred. The taxable receipt was therefore matched by an accrued-liability deduction. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:22:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59290 Investment allowance under section 32A required item-wise examination of the plant and machinery claimed, because the earlier rejection rested on a general view that hotel business was not an industrial undertaking. The proper approach was to test each asset separately on its own facts, and the matter was restored for fresh decision without any final allowance at that stage. Hotel receipts tax collected through bills in the course of business was treated as a trading receipt; however, under mercantile accounting, the corresponding tax liability had accrued in the year despite the statutory stay, so deduction could not be denied merely because payment was deferred. The taxable receipt was therefore matched by an accrued-liability deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59290