1996 (10) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules government subsidies not deductible from asset cost for depreciation calculation; clarifies 'actual cost' interpretation.

The High Court held that capital subsidies received by the assessee should not be deducted from the 'actual cost' of assets for depreciation calculation, ... Actual Cost, Central Government, Question Of Law Issues:- Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the capital subsidy received by the assessee should not be deducted from the value of the assets while calculating depreciation.Detailed Analysis:The judgment pertains to petitions filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, seeking direction for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law regarding the treatment of capital subsidy received by the assessee for depreciation calculation. The respondent-assessee, a private limited company engaged in milling wheat, suji, atta, etc., claimed that the subsidy received should not be deducted from the total assets for allowing depreciation. The assessing authority disagreed and held that the subsidy amount should be deducted. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, directing depreciation without reducing the subsidy amount from the cost of assets. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal and subsequent petition under section 256(2) seeking reference of the legal question.The Department argued for reference based on previous court decisions, which were subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court in CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. The Supreme Court clarified that government subsidies, intended to incentivize industrial development in backward areas, should not be deducted from the 'actual cost' for depreciation calculation. The Court interpreted the term 'actual cost' liberally and held that such subsidies do not meet the conditions for deductibility from the actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitions, stating that no question of law remained for determination in light of the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement and the reversal of previous decisions by the High Court.In conclusion, the judgment establishes the legal position that capital subsidies received by an assessee should not be deducted from the 'actual cost' of assets for depreciation calculation, as clarified by the Supreme Court. The High Court's decision to dismiss the petitions was based on the authoritative interpretation provided by the Supreme Court and the reversal of previous decisions on the matter.