https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60546 The Tribunal held that retreading motor vehicle tires did not qualify as production for initial depreciation claim under section 32(1)(vi) of the IT Act. It distinguished between production and repair, stating that retreading did not involve creating a new product but restoring an existing one. As retreading was not listed in the Ninth Schedule, it did not meet the criteria for initial depreciation. The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' decision to disallow the claim, dismissing the appeal. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:20:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60546 The Tribunal held that retreading motor vehicle tires did not qualify as production for initial depreciation claim under section 32(1)(vi) of the IT Act. It distinguished between production and repair, stating that retreading did not involve creating a new product but restoring an existing one. As retreading was not listed in the Ninth Schedule, it did not meet the criteria for initial depreciation. The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' decision to disallow the claim, dismissing the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60546