Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether subsidy received under the Government of Maharashtra Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, and whether it could be reduced from the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes.
Analysis: The subsidy was granted under a scheme whose object was industrial dispersal to less developed areas and sustained industrial growth with employment generation. The decisive factor was the purpose of the subsidy and not the timing or mode of disbursal. Since the subsidy was intended to encourage setting up of industrial units and not to meet the cost of any particular asset, it was capital in nature. For the same reason, Explanation 10 to section 43(1) did not apply, because the subsidy was not intended to offset the actual cost of the assets. The later insertion of section 2(24)(xviii) was not applicable to the assessment years involved.
Conclusion: The subsidy was held to be a capital receipt not chargeable to tax, and it could not be reduced from the actual cost of the fixed assets for depreciation purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The true character of a subsidy is determined by the purpose for which it is granted; if the object is industrial development and setting up of units, the subsidy is capital in nature even if paid after commencement of production and even if quantified with reference to investment or asset cost.