TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Treatment of Investment Subsidy Impact on Depreciation: High Court Clarifies Legal Precedent</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Kontiki Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Kontiki Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited - [1993] 200 ITR 735, 106 CTR 64 Issues:1. Interpretation of the treatment of investment subsidy received by an assessee for determining actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act.2. Relevance and justification of relying on a circular by the Tribunal for decision-making.3. Determination of whether a referable question of law arises in the case.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a batch of three cases where the Revenue, as the petitioner, challenged the treatment of investment subsidy received by an assessee for determining actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, a private limited company, had received investment subsidy from the Central Government for setting up industries in backward areas. The Income-tax Officer initially deducted the subsidy from the cost of assets for depreciation and other purposes. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the subsidy should not be considered for determining actual cost under section 43(1). The Tribunal, following its earlier decision and a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, concurred that the subsidy was not to be taken into account for depreciation or investment allowance purposes, as it was meant for starting industries and not for machinery acquisition.The Revenue filed applications to refer questions of law arising from the Tribunal's decision to the High Court. The Tribunal initially declined to refer the questions, citing precedent decisions. However, the High Court, considering relevant legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, found that a referable question of law did arise in this case. The Court emphasized that even if a question of law aligns with a Bench decision, it can still be referable unless it is merely academic or governed by higher court decisions. Consequently, the Court allowed the original petitions and directed the Tribunal to refer the questions of law formulated by the Revenue for decision.The judgment highlights the importance of determining the treatment of subsidies received by an assessee for tax purposes. It also underscores the significance of legal precedent and the criteria for establishing a referable question of law in such cases. The decision provides clarity on the process of referring questions to the High Court for resolution, ensuring adherence to legal principles and precedents in tax matters.
TaxTMI 