Court rules subsidy not deductible for capital assets depreciation. Decision favors assessee. The High Court of Madras ruled in a tax case reference that the subsidy received by the assessee should not be deducted in computing the actual cost of ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court rules subsidy not deductible for capital assets depreciation. Decision favors assessee.
The High Court of Madras ruled in a tax case reference that the subsidy received by the assessee should not be deducted in computing the actual cost of capital assets for depreciation and investment allowance. The court's decision aligned with a previous ruling and was in favor of the assessee, against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
The High Court of Madras, in a tax case reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ruled that the subsidy received by the assessee from SIPCOT should not be deducted in computing the actual cost of capital assets for depreciation and investment allowance. This decision aligns with a previous ruling in Srinivas Industries v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 22 (Mad). The court's answer to the question was in the affirmative, against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
