Court rules subsidies as deductible for asset depreciation under Income-tax Act section 32, aligning with industrial policy.

The court held that subsidies received by Jindal Brothers should be deducted from the actual cost of assets for depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The subsidies were deemed to reduce the actual cost of machinery, plant, and building, aligning with the industrial policy's intent to incentivize new industries in backward areas. The court emphasized the subsidies' uniform application and nexus to asset costs, ruling in favor of the Revenue and affirming the applicability of section 43(1) in determining depreciation allowance.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the question of whether the amount received by way of subsidy should be deducted from the actual cost of building, machinery, and plant for the purpose of allowing depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

The judgment pertains to a case where the assessee, Jindal Brothers, received a 15% subsidy on plant, machinery, land, and building under an incentive policy of the Government of Punjab. The Income-tax Officer initially reduced the actual cost of these assets by the amount of subsidy received before allowing depreciation. The matter was appealed, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, citing previous rulings. The central question referred to the High Court was whether the subsidies received should be deducted from the cost of assets for determining depreciation allowance under the Income-tax Act.

Upon considering section 43(1) of the Act, which defines "actual cost," the court deliberated on whether the subsidies provided by the State Government should be considered as reducing the actual cost of assets. The Department argued that the subsidies should be deducted, while the assessee contended that the scheme did not specify subsidies for meeting the cost of assets. The court analyzed various High Court decisions and ultimately held that the subsidies granted were intended to reduce the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes.

The court emphasized that the subsidies were part of a broader industrial policy aimed at encouraging new industries in backward areas. It noted that the subsidies were a universal incentive provided at a percentage of the cost of assets to avoid discrimination and ensure uniform application. The court disagreed with the view that the subsidies were not specifically for meeting the cost of assets, stating that there was a clear nexus between the subsidies and the cost of each item.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the subsidies should be deducted from the actual cost of machinery, plant, and building for depreciation purposes. The court distinguished previous cases where subsidies were treated differently based on the specific circumstances, affirming the applicability of section 43(1) in the present case.

---