https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68835 Investment subsidy received from SIPCOT under the Central investment subsidy scheme did not reduce the actual cost of depreciable assets under section 43(1) because the incentive was intended to promote industrialisation, was linked to fixed capital investment as a whole, and was not earmarked for any specific plant or machinery. The statutory requirement that any payment be met directly or indirectly against the cost of the asset demands a real nexus with the particular depreciable asset claimed. A lump sum subsidy granted after the industrial unit was set up and put into production, without proof that it funded an identified asset, cannot be treated as reducing actual cost for depreciation purposes. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Apr 2011 10:15:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68835 Investment subsidy received from SIPCOT under the Central investment subsidy scheme did not reduce the actual cost of depreciable assets under section 43(1) because the incentive was intended to promote industrialisation, was linked to fixed capital investment as a whole, and was not earmarked for any specific plant or machinery. The statutory requirement that any payment be met directly or indirectly against the cost of the asset demands a real nexus with the particular depreciable asset claimed. A lump sum subsidy granted after the industrial unit was set up and put into production, without proof that it funded an identified asset, cannot be treated as reducing actual cost for depreciation purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68835